AGNICO-EAGLE MINES: Claim Filing Deadline May 20------------------------------------------------The Ontario and Quebec Courts have appointed RicePointAdministration Inc. as the administrator of the settlement, whichwas reached in the class action against Agnico-Eagle Mines Limitedarising from the company's alleged failure to disclose operationalissues at its Goldex mine before the mine's closure in 2011.

The company has agreed to pay $17 million. The settlement is acompromise of disputed claims and is not an admission of liabilityor wrong doing by the company.

To be eligible for compensation, class members must submit acompleted claim form to RicePoint Administration no later than May20, 2016.

Alarm & Electronics is a trusted name in the security industry.The company, is privately owned, licensed and certified by theState of Florida and Underwriters Laboratory since 1982. TheCompany's line of business includes protecting both large andsmall residential and commercial structures, governmentfacilities, high tech sensitive telecommunications buildings, andmanufacturing and shipping venues.

Allied Health Services was founded in 1985. The company's line ofbusiness includes the retail sale of prescription drugs,proprietary drugs, and non-prescription medicines. The Company isa New York Corporation, with its principal place of businesslocated at 2322 Arthur Avenue, Bronx, New York.

AMERICAN HONDA: Violated Warranty Act, "Kojikian" Suit Claims--------------------------------------------------------------Armen G. Kojikian, as an individual, on behalf of himself, allothers similarly situated, and the general public, Time Traders,Inc., as a California Corporation, on behalf of itself, all othersimilarly situation, and the general public, the Plaintiffs, v.American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation; and DOES1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC606322 (Cal SuperCt., County of Los Angeles, Central District, January 8, 2016),was filed against the Defendant for personal injuries or propertydamage resulting from defects in Defendant's pattern and practiceof fraudulently, unfairly, deceptively, and unlawfully marketing,advertising, promoting and leasing/selling various vehicles thatwere defective in that they have excessive oil consumption,pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Magnuson-MossWarranty Act, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, CaliforniaUnfair Competition Act, and Business and Professions Code.

American Honda Motor Company is a California corporation with itsnational headquarters in Torrance, California.

The Plaintiffs initially sought an order requiring Mr. Mueller topost a $10,000 appeal bond to account for estimated appellatecosts and continued settlement administration costs during thelength of the appeal period.

In his response, Mr. Mueller states: "Objector does not oppose abond of less than or equal to $5,000, class counsel's estimate oftaxable costs under Rule 39(e)."

In their reply, the Plaintiffs assert that "to avoid furtherlitigation on this issue, Plaintiffs request that the Court enteran Order under FRAP 7 and 8 requiring Objector-Appellant Muller topost an appeal bond totaling $5,000 to account for expectedappellate costs as well as the administrative costs of continuedsettlement administration during the length of the appeal period."

In his Order dated February 2, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/N5iwvhfrom Leagle.com, Judge O'Sullivan said Mr. Mueller must post a $5,000 appeal bond with the Clerk of the Courtwithin 20 days of the Order. The Court finds that the impositionof an appeal bond is warranted.

Based on the questionable nature of the objections previouslyasserted by Mr. Mueller, the Court believes it is unlikely thatMr. Mueller will prevail in his appeal. The Court will not make afinding that Mr. Mueller has engaged in bad faith or vexatiousconduct based on the record at this time. Nonetheless, havingreviewed Mr. Mueller's objections in this case and in a priorclass action the undersigned concludes that the third factor iseither neutral or weighs more in favor of imposing a bond.

The Court notes that Mr. Mueller asserts that he does not have thefinancial means to pay a large bond and while Mr. Mueller does notadequately support this statement in his declaration, it issufficient to raise the issue of whether Mr. Mueller would be ableto pay appellate costs if he is unsuccessful on appeal. ThePlaintiffs have shown that Mr. Mueller's counsel has engaged insimilar objections to class action settlements in the past.

The Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Productsusing a marketing and advertising campaign that is centered aroundclaims appealing to health conscious consumers that their Productsoffer "Natural Solutions" and/or were "Natural" and/or "AllNatural".

Garcinia cambogia is a plant, native to Indonesia, that containsHCA as its active nutrient. Garcinia cambogia has been the focusof weight-loss industry promotions following its introduction onan episode of the Dr. Oz Show that aired on television in October2012.

Baer's Furniture, a Florida corporation, owns and operates a chainof home furnishing stores in Florida. It provides living, bedroom,dining, entertainment, office, and outdoor furniture, as well asmattresses; and professional interior design services andconsultations. The company also serves shoppers from theCaribbean, including Freeport and Nassau, Bahamas, the CaymanIslands, the Virgin Islands, the Florida Keys, and more. It sellsproducts online. The Company was founded in 1945 and isheadquartered in Pompano Beach, Florida with store locations inCasselberry, Winter Garden, Boca Raton, Dania Beach, FortLauderdale, Ft. Myers, Miami, Naples, North Palm Beach, andPembroke Pines.

This case involves allegations that Plaintiffs and all Big WaterResort Club members were harmed by the conversion of the Big WaterResort from a private club to a public club. The classrepresentatives are individuals who purchased memberships in theBig Water Club or Big Water Resort, a recreational vehicle parkand campground in Summerton, South Carolina. The classrepresentatives each entered into substantially similar membershipagreements with Big Water Resort, which was responsible for thedaily operations and the marketing of the club.

Defendants Clark, Thigpen, and Lovell are the sole members ofDefendants TLC Holdings, LLC and Big Water Resort. Defendant TLCHoldings owns the land and improvements upon which Big WaterResort is situated.

The parties mediated this litigation in October 2015, and reachedas settlement at the mediation.

The salient terms of the settlement are:

-- Defendants will pay into escrow $1,000,000 for the creation of a Settlement Fund.

-- The Settlement Fund will be paid to Class Members who submit a timely and complete Claim Form in an amount which is a percentage equal to the amount paid by a class member for their membership agreement, divided by the total amount of the Membership Agreement purchase price for all Class Members for all membership agreements of the Class Members including any of the 31 persons who submit proof of 2011 dues payments.

-- Any unclaimed funds after the expiration of the claim period will be refunded to the Defendants from the escrow account.

-- Defendants will provide to Class Members who submit a timely and complete Claim Form a Gift Certificate redeemable for credits to be used for camping at Sandy Shores Resort at the current (general public) rental rate at the time of use. The total dollar amount allotted to Gift Certificates is $250,000 redeemable on a claims made based on the same formula as the Cash component.

In his Order dated February 1, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/bSfak4from Leagle.com, Judge Norton granted the joint motion for class settlement. The Court gives preliminaryapproval of the Comprehensive Settlement Term Sheet contingent onfinal approval at the Final Fairness Hearing. The Court approvesthe notice and claims procedure proposed by the Parties anddescribed in the Comprehensive Settlement Term Sheet, the ProposedNotice handed up at the hearing and attachments to the JointMotion for Class Settlement. The Court approves the notice andclaims procedure proposed by the Parties and described in theComprehensive Settlement Term Sheet, the Proposed Notice handed upat the hearing and attachments to the Joint Motion for ClassSettlement.

The Court appoints William Reed, Donna Reed, Bonnie Youmans, JaneYates, and Phillip Caulder as Class Representatives for theSettlement Class. The Court appoints Richardson, Patrick,Westbrook & Brickman, LLC, and Finkel Law Firm, LLC, together toact as Class Counsel and to administer the settlement.

The Court schedules a Final Fairness Hearing for May 16, 2016 at10:00 a.m. and a Final Appeals and Distribution Hearing onSeptember 1, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.

At the Final Fairness Hearing, the Court will determine whether 1)the proposed Class Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonableand should be approved by the Court, 2) Class Counsel's requestedattorney's fees and costs are reasonable and should be reimbursedfrom the settlement proceeds, and 3) whether the Named Plaintiffs'Incentive Payments are fair and reasonable.

CABOT OIL: Jury Hears Opening Statements in Gas Well Suit---------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reports that two families who accuse one ofthe largest natural gas drillers in Pennsylvania of pollutingtheir well water are trying to persuade a federal jury to hold thecompany accountable.

Opening statements were made on Feb. 23 in a bitter and long-running federal lawsuit that pits homeowners in the village ofDimock against Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.

Dimock was the scene of the most highly publicized case of methanecontamination to emerge from the early days of Pennsylvania'snatural-gas drilling boom. State regulators blamed faulty gaswells drilled by Cabot for leaking combustible methane intoDimock's groundwater. Cabot has consistently deniedresponsibility.

The rural community became a national battleground inenvironmental activists' fight against fracking -- the techniquethat allows drilling companies to extract huge volumes of oil andnatural gas from rock formations deep underground -- and itsplight was featured in the Emmy-winning 2010 documentary"Gasland."

Dozens of plaintiffs settled with Cabot in 2012, but twohomeowners opted to take their claims to court.

"We haven't had clean water since my son was in kindergarten. He'snow in seventh grade," one of the plaintiffs, Monica Marta-Ely,said outside court on Feb. 22, when jurors were selected. "It'snot a normal way of life."

Leslie Lewis, the families' attorney, said in opening statementsthat her clients' water was clean and drinkable until Cabotdrilled two natural gas wells near their homes in 2008.Stephen Dillard, Cabot's attorney, told jurors the problemsstarted before Cabot began drilling -- and continue to this day,some six years after Cabot plugged the wells.

"One would expect . . . when we filled the wells with cement andshut them down, the problem should go away," Mr. Dillard said,according to The Times-Tribune of Scranton. "Yet here we are, sixyears later, and the complaints continue."

Residents first reported problems with their wells in 2008. Thewater that came out of their faucets turned cloudy, foamy anddiscolored, and smelled and tasted foul. Homeowners, all of whomhad leased their land to Cabot, said the water made them sick withsymptoms that included vomiting, dizziness and skin rashes.

After a water well exploded on New Year's Day 2009, a stateinvestigation found that Cabot had allowed gas to escape into theregion's groundwater supplies, contaminating at least 18residential water wells.

Cabot asserts the methane in the residents' wells is naturallyoccurring.

The Court in Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc.,U.S.D.C., Central District of California Case No. 2:15-cv-00393,authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation.

You may be entitled to a payment from a class action Settlement.A Class Settlement has been reached in connection with lawsuitsand unfiled claims against Caldera Medical, Inc. ("Caldera"). Theclaims being settled relate to injuries allegedly caused bytransvaginal mesh ("TVM") devices manufactured, marketed, sold anddistributed by Caldera and its affiliates and suppliers under thefollowing trade names: T-Sling(R), Desara(R), Ascend(R),Hydrix(R), POPmesh(R), and Vertessa(R). These claims arecollectively referred to as "Transvaginal Mesh Medical ProductClaims" or "Caldera TVM Claims."

If approved by the Court, the Class Settlement will create a cashSettlement Fund of $11.75 million for the benefit of claimantsasserting Caldera TVM Claims.

The claimants assert that Caldera manufactured, marketed, sold,and distributed TVM devices that it knew or should have known werehazardous and dangerous to patients who were implanted with them.Caldera denied and continues to deny that it did anything wrong.The principle reasons for the Class Settlement are to maximize theshare of Caldera's limited resources that are paid to claimants,and to eliminate the expense, uncertainty and risk of furtherlitigation.

Anyone who has filed a lawsuit asserting any claim against Calderarelating to injuries allegedly caused by a Caldera TVM device, orwho has entered into a tolling agreement with Caldera relating tothe filing of such claims, is automatically a member of theSettlement Class and is entitled to submit a Claim Form seeking apayment from the Settlement Fund.

If you have not filed a lawsuit or entered into a tollingagreement, you still may be entitled to participate in theSettlement if you or someone in your family was implanted with aTVM device manufactured, marketed, sold, or distributed byCaldera, and you believe that the Caldera TVM device has causedany injuries. To join the Settlement Class and request a paymentfrom the Settlement Fund, you will need to submit a Claim Form.

Whether or not you have already filed a lawsuit or entered into atolling agreement, you must file a Claim Form to get payment.Anyone entitled to submit a Claim Form who does not do so will notbe able to receive any cash available under the Settlement, sueCaldera for Transvaginal Mesh Medical Product Claims, or be partof any other lawsuit against Caldera asserting TVM claims.

A more detailed Class Notice is being provided to claimants whoalready have asserted claims against Caldera. If you believe youare a Class Member, but did not receive the Class Notice, you maylog on to www.calderaclaims.com or call toll-free: 1-800-683-4872,to request a copy of the Class Notice and a Claim Form. You alsomay request these materials by writing to the settlementadministrator at The Settlement Alliance, Attn: Caldera ClaimsAdministrator, P.O. Box 92040, Southlake, TX 76092.

Claim Forms must be received or postmarked by May 2nd, 2016. YouMust Act Now To Protect Your Rights.

Plaintiff worked as a cook, food preparer, bus person anddishwasher. She allegedly did not receive a regular wage but onlytips from customers.

Chateau Seafood Inc. is a domestic business corporation organizedand existing under the laws of New York doing business as ChateauDe Captain with principal place of business at 2570 Coney IslandAve., Brooklyn, New York 11223. Yunayev and Shafei are co-ownersand managers of the said establishment.

CHRISTCHURCH, NZ: CTV Earthquake Victims Seek Accountability------------------------------------------------------------Channel NewsAsia reports that the New Zealand city of Christchurchcame to a standstill on Feb. 22 to mark the fifth anniversary of adevastating earthquake that left 185 dead, amid anger aboutaccountability and insurance delays.

The 6.3-tremor in 2011 was one of the country's deadliestdisasters and the city stopped for a minute's silence to mark themoment when much of New Zealand's second largest city wasdestroyed.

Throughout the day people cast flowers into the Avon River whichmeanders through the city in a poignant "River of Flowers"memorial, while players wore black armbands at the cricket Testbetween New Zealand and Australia being played at Hagley Oval.

"Today we reflect on the Christchurch earthquake, remember thosewe lost and look forward with optimism to the future," PrimeMinister John Key said as he led tributes with a message onTwitter.

"Today we remember the events of five years ago in Christchurchand those who lost their lives. But we also reflect on how farwe've come, what's been achieved and look forward to the futurewith a renewed sense of optimism."

However, Mr. Key's words jarred with many people angered that noone has yet been held accountable for the buildings that collapsedand not all home insurance claims have been settled.

Maan Alkaisi's wife was one of 115 people killed in the CTVbuilding that collapsed and he has been campaigning foraccountability ever since an inquiry found it did not meetconstruction standards.

"The fact that after five years there is nothing; how do youexplain that?" Mr. Alkaisi told the New Zealand Herald.

The families of the CTV victims attempted to launch a class actionlawsuit, but were informed New Zealand's justice system could notsupport such a case, Mr. Alkaisi said. They were told police wereresponsible for finding criminal liability.

PROTEST RALLY

Ann Brower, the only survivor among nine people on a bus crushedunder a collapsed building, remains furious that the local councilhad failed to cordon off the area after it was damaged in anearthquake five months earlier.

"It wasn't the earthquake that killed all the people on the bus,it was the building," she told Radio New Zealand.

"And it was the city council's lack of requiring the buildingowner to fix it, and the city council's lack of bringing it down,and the city council's lack of putting up a fence. No, no, no, itwas not an accident."

A city council spokesman said they were still awaiting the outcomeof the police investigation into buildings that failed and couldnot comment until it was completed.

On Feb. 21, nearly 1,000 Christchurch residents attended a protestrally to air their frustration over insurance delays.

Insurance industry critic Sarah Miles, who wrote a book about themanagement of the catastrophe called "The Christchurch Fiasco",said thousands of people had been affected by failed repairs,delayed settlements and cash settlements that fell short.

The government minister responsible for overseeing the earthquakerecovery, Gerry Brownlee, said much of the work had been done.

"Most insurance claims are resolved, most of the demolitions aredone, most of the infrastructure repair is complete," he said.

Since February 22, 2011 nearly 14,000 quakes have been recorded inthe Christchurch area including 13 in the 24 hours to 12:51 p.m.on Feb. 22.

Most of the shakes have been minor although a week ago there was areminder of how powerful they could be when 5.8 tremor knockeditems of shelves and sent a cliff face plunging into the sea.

On November 19, 2014, Cnova priced its IPO of 26,800,000 shares,at a price of $7.00 per share, exclusive of the underwriters'over-allotment option to purchase 4,020,000 additional shares. OnDecember 18, 2015, after the market closed, Cnova issued a pressrelease entitled "Cnova N.V. Initiates a Review of Inventory inBrazil". In relevant part, the Company disclosed that its Boardof Directors engaged legal advisors and external forensicaccountants to perform a review of issues related to inventorymanagement. According to the Company, the issues involve thehandling of product returns and damaged product inventory atdistribution centers of Cnova's Brazilian subsidiary, CnovaCom‚rcio Eletronico S.A. (Cnova Brazil).

Cnova N.V. operates as an e-Commerce company in Europe, LatinAmerica, Asia, and Africa. It operates in two segments, Cdiscountand Cnova Brazil. The company offers televisions, mobile phones,tablet computers, DVD/CD players, MP3 players, cameras, and homeentertainment and stereo systems, as well as various accessoriesand other consumer electronic products under third party brandsand private labels, such as Continental Edison and Oceanic. TheCompany is headquartered at Schiphol, Netherlands.

Columbia Organic Holdings is a limited liability company organizedunder the laws of New York, with a principal place of business andaddress at 45th Street, New York, New York. The Company had grossrevenues in excess of $500,000.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated February 1, 2016,is available at http://is.gd/DR3yytfrom Leagle.com.

The Settlement agreement provides that the defendants pay to theClass a total Settlement Fund of $15,000, representing maximumstatutory damages available under the FDCPA in this case. Furtherthe defendants agree to pay the amount of $17,500 as statutorydamages under the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act. Defendantsalso agree to pay $4,000 as statutory damages to plaintiff KennethM. Reynolds as class representative and as an incentive award, andto pay the costs of administration including the costs of classnotice by first class mail and class administration.

In March 2008, a Data Tape containing the personal information ofall DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Canada Inc. ("ChryslerFinancial") vehicle lease customers across Canada was lost(approximately 239,277 customers). The personal information onthe lost or stolen Data Tape contained some or all of thefollowing information: the customer's name, address, phonenumber, social insurance number, date of birth, as well as otherinformation related to the status and history of the customer'scredit file with Chrysler Financial.

If, on or before March 12, 2008, you leased a vehicle fromChrysler Financial (including, without limitation: Chrysler, Dodgeor Jeep vehicles), your personal information was likely includedin the lost Data Tape. You may also have received a notificationletter from Chrysler Financial in March or April 2008, informingyou of the loss of your personal information.

1. TAKE NOTICE that on January 19, 2015, the HonourableMr. Justice Lacoursiere of the Superior Court of Quebec authorizedthe bringing of a class action against DefendantTD Auto Finance Services Inc., formally DaimlerChrysler FinancialServices Canada Inc. ("Chrysler Financial" or "Defendant"), andascribed the status of representative to Mr. Maxime Belley("Petitioner" or "Plaintiff") to act on behalf of the followingGroup:

All persons (including their estates, executors, or personalrepresentatives), consumers, corporations, firms, businesses, andother organizations, in all of Canada, whose personal informationwas stored or saved on a data tape, which was lost by Respondentwhile in transit on or about March 12, 2008.

2. This class action will be brought in the Province of Quebec,District of Montreal.

3. The principal questions of facts and law that will be dealtwith collectively are the following:

a. Was Defendant negligent in the handling of and subsequent lossof the personal information of the Group members?

b. Is Defendant liable to pay damages to the Group members as aresult of the loss of said information, including actual monetarylosses incurred, lost time, inconvenience, anxiety and other moraland/or punitive damages caused by the loss of said information,and if so in what amount?

4. The conclusions sought by this authorized class action are thefollowing:

GRANT Plaintiffs' action against Defendant;

CONDEMN Defendant to pay to the members of the Group compensatorydamages for all monetary losses caused as a result of Defendant'sloss of the members' personal information;

CONDEMN Defendant to pay to the members of the Group compensatoryand/or moral damages in the amount to be determined by the Courtas a result of Defendant's loss of said members' personalinformation;

CONDEMN Defendant to pay an amount in punitive/exemplary damagesto every Group member, in the amount to be determined by theCourt, with interest as well as the additional indemnity;

GRANT the class action of Petitioner on behalf of all the membersof the Group;

ORDER the treatment of individual claims of each member of theGroup in accordance with the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure;

THE WHOLE with interest and additional indemnity provided for inthe Civil Code of Quebec and with full costs and expenses,including expert's fees and publication fees to advise members;

5. If you wish to exclude yourself from the class action, you mustnotify the clerk of the Court no later than May 28, 2016, byregistered or certified mail at the following address:Clerk

DELBERT SERVICES: Arbitration Ruling Reversed in "Hayes" Suit-------------------------------------------------------------The arbitration agreement between debt collector Delbert ServicesCorporation and each of the individual debtors is unenforceable,the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled.

James Hayes, the lead Plaintiff-Appellant, received a payday loanfrom a lender called Western Sky Financial, LLC. Defendant-Appellee Delbert Services Corporation later became the servicingagent for Hayes's loan. Because Delbert's debt collectionpractices allegedly violated federal law, Hayes initiated aputative class action against Delbert. Claiming that Hayes and hisfellow Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate any disputes related totheir loans, Delbert moved to compel arbitration under the FederalArbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. Section 4. The District Courtgranted Delbert's motion.

Hayes and the other Plaintiffs appealed from the order compellingarbitration. Delbert conditionally appealed the orders decliningto enforce the forum selection clause and denying theapplicability of tribal exhaustion.

In his Decision dated February 2, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/qBmNSDfrom Leagle.com, Circuit Judge J Harvie Wilkinson III, who wrote the decision, reversed the DistrictCourt's order compelling arbitration and remanded for furtherproceedings.

"We both respect and appreciate the support of Congress and theSupreme Court for an arbitration procedure that reduces the costsand delays of civil litigation. Our review of the record leads usto conclude, however, that the arbitration agreement in this caseis unenforceable. The agreement purportedly fashions a system ofalternative dispute resolution while simultaneously rendering thatsystem all but impotent through a categorical rejection of therequirements of state and federal law. The FAA does not protectthe sort of arbitration agreement that unambiguously forbids anarbitrator from even applying the applicable law. We thereforereverse the district court's order compelling arbitration andremand for further proceedings," Judge Wilkinson held.

DENSO: U.S Auto Dealers, Consumers Sue Over Alleged Price-Fixing----------------------------------------------------------------Hans Greimel, writing for Automotive News, reports that U.S. autodealers and consumers are suing parts makers, saying they paidmore for their vehicles because of price-fixing by the suppliers.

The civil suits follow numerous criminal cases filed by thefederal government over price-fixing. Those resulted in corporatefines and prison time for managers at the accused suppliers. Thecivil suits could be exponentially more costly to the suppliers inquestion.

In a procedural move in December, many of the plaintiffsconsolidated their separate cases into two suits -- one each fordealerships and consumers -- with their legal focus centered onJapan's largest automotive supplier: Denso Corp.

It spells more bad news for many of the 23 defendants. If thecases go to trial and a jury agrees with the plaintiffs, thesuppliers could face penalties up to triple the actual damages.

What's more, because numerous suppliers are being wrapped into thesame suits as alleged co-conspirators, they would be liable notonly for the damages caused by their own price fixing but also forthe damages of the other suppliers, lawyers said.

That could dramatically ratchet up their payouts.

Denso was targeted as the ringleader of a wider conspiracy becauseof its size and reach. It does business with dozens of othersuppliers and auto manufacturers, plaintiff lawyers said.

"Denso was sufficiently big and powerful that even those companiesthat might say "We prefer not to do this' could be forced tobecause Denso could then take retribution on the company thatrefused to cooperate," Mr. Williams said.

Denso spokesperson Yu Matsuda said the company could not commenton pending legal matters.

The two suits, each seeking class-action status, were filed inU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan inDetroit under Judge Marianne Battani. One suit was filed onbehalf of auto dealer plaintiffs, the other on behalf ofconsumers. They mirror each other in their accusations.

The more than 40 dealerships named as plaintiffs in that lawsuitinclude Capitol Toyota and Capitol Chevrolet-Cadillac, of Salem,Ore.; Steve Landers Toyota, of Little Rock, Ark.; McGrathAutomotive Group, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Lee Honda, of Auburn,Maine; Thornhill GM Superstore, of Chapmanville, W. Va.; andStephen Wade Toyota, of St. George, Utah.

Defendants include Denso and other parts makers that haveallegedly done business with Denso, many of which have alreadybeen fingered in the Department of Justice's ongoing criminalcrackdown. But the list includes some suppliers that have not yetbeen publicly charged by the Justice Department, such as CalsonicKansei Corp., Delphi Automotive, Keihin Corp. and Mahle Behr GmbH.(For a full listing of dealership plaintiffs and supplierdefendants, go to autonews.com/pricefix.)

Judge Battani is to decide in March whether the cases can beconsolidated.

If that happens, it would reduce the number of class-action suitsagainst automotive parts suppliers to around 15 cases from themore than 30 already being pursued, Mr. Williams said.

Several civil cases are expected to proceed independently againstother suppliers in such fields such as bearings, seat belts,airbags and anti-vibration rubber parts, he said.

The scope of the Denso conspiracy only came into focus after theJustice Department and antitrust authorities in other countriesescalated their crackdown on price fixing among mainly Japanesesuppliers.

"Now that we have had the curtain pulled back, we can see thepicture more clearly," Mr. Williams said.

The dealer and consumer class actions that seek to be consolidatedallege a horizontal conspiracy, in which Denso, the world'sfourth-largest supplier, acted as a clearinghouse for bid riggingand market allocation among the others.

The plaintiffs cite what they call the Japanese business practiceof shouken, meaning "respecting commercial rights" or "respectingincumbency." The understanding was if one supplier had anexisting relationship with an automaker, the others wouldn'tmuscle in on that territory. They would "pretend" to compete butensure their bids were too high, the suits claim.

Suppliers also allocated business among themselves geographically,the suits say.

Those and other practices unfairly drove up prices paid by dealersand consumers for their cars, the proposed class actions say.

The plaintiffs have not yet determined how much they will seek inrestitution. That will depend on how much the suppliers sold tothe automakers and how much they overcharged, lawyers say.

But the filings cite former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder'sestimate that the conspiracies affected more than $5 billion inautomotive parts sold to U.S. car manufacturers and more than 25million cars purchased by American consumers.

Williams said the money involved could be "well in excess of thatnumber" because the alleged fixing covered a decade. SaidMr. Williams: "We're talking about an enormous amount ofcommerce."

The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed withprejudice. The plaintiff shall have and recover nothing of thedefendants, the Court ruled.

According the case docket, Ms. Black immediately lodged an appealfrom the Court's ruling.

Early this month, Judge Steele granted in part Defendants' motionin limine. The Plaintiff and her witnesses are precluded fromsuggesting to the jury -- by evidence, comment or otherwise-- the existence of other lawsuits against the Defendants,including the class action.

The Defendants object that a witness was not identified until shewas listed by the Plaintiff in the final pretrial document. In anOrder dated February 2, 2016 available at http://is.gd/ItDa94from Leagle.com, Judge Steele held that the Defendants correctly pointout that this is a grossly tardy disclosure. The Plaintiff doesnot oppose the motion. The Plaintiff is precluded from callingMartha Lester as a trial witness. The Plaintiff is precluded fromoffering evidence that is not relevant to her remaining FLSAclaim.

The Plaintiff's ability to offer such evidence to the Court,following any jury verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, remainsopen, and to that extent the motion in limine is denied. The Courtdoes not rule that such evidence is admissible, but the Defendantshave failed to show that it is not admissible. Accordingly, theirmotion in limine is denied.

Eos Products provides beauty products. It offers lip balms, handlotions, body lotions, and shave creams. The company offers itsproducts through online stores and retailers in the United Statesand Canada. The Company was founded in 2006 and is based in NewYork, New York.

FIRST NATIONAL: SIM Scam Victims Urged to Join Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------Ivor Powell, writing IOL, reports that after nearly six weeks inwhich Cape Town audiologist Gail Jacklin failed to get answers toher questions after her online identity was stolen over New Yearand more than R300, 000 fraudulently siphoned off from FirstNational Bank accounts using her MTN contract smartphone to effectthe transfer of funds, MTN concluded its investigations andinformed Jacklin they were not at fault.

MTN said: "MTN wishes to reiterate that it cannot be held liablefor any fraud that may have been committed on your bank account,as such fraud can only be committed where a fraudster has yourbank card/account number, your internet banking PIN and password.

"Accordingly, MTN accepts no liability with regard to this kind offraud as it is not caused by any action on the side of MTN."

"I don't think that is good enough. I mean where does the buckstop?" Ms. Jacklin protested to Weekend Argus.

FNB said it was "at an advanced stage of the investigation", andwould "engage with the customer directly as soon as theinvestigation is finalized".

Still unanswered is how, where and on what basis Ms. Jacklin's SIMwas swopped.

A MTN forensic investigator told Ms. Jacklin the SIM swop had beentraced to a dealership in Bronkhorstspruit, and the operators ofthe dealership questioned, although this was not confirmed toWeekend Argus.

These operators reportedly claimed their system had gone down atthe time the SIM swop occurred and the MTN investigatorsreportedly confirmed the dealership had recorded problems aroundthis time.

"But what does any of this have to do with me?" Ms. Jacklin asked."What it says is their systems have been compromised -- that MTNis failing to protect its own networks as well as its customers."

Graham De Vries, MTN corporate services executive told WeekendArgus: "We are looking unto the matter and will provide feedbackof the outcome to the customer as soon as the investigation isdone."

A follow-up question regarding an undertaking given by MTN -- asreported on the website Mybroadband -- that (among otherprovisions) it was implementing as an anti-fraud measure a "SIMswop delay until the legitimate customer has confirmed the requestvia SMS" -- was unanswered at the time of publication.

Ms. Jacklin said she was not approached about a SIM swop and hadnot authorised it.

Ms. Jacklin claims her private FNB account was defrauded of aboutR120 000 in addition to more than R200 000 already stolen from theaudiology practice's business account after she approached FNB toblock the account.

She said it was reopened by a bank employee (identity known) whoneglected to reblock it when Ms. Jacklin's passwords could not bechanged.

"I don't see how I can be held accountable for this failure,"Ms. Jacklin argued.

The received wisdom regarding this kind of fraud is that it ofteninvolves a so-called "phishing" scam where customer access detailsare shared with the crooks by gullible clients responding toemails purporting to be official communiques from banks.

Alternatively a "key-logger" (a program recording keystrokes andtransmitting these to identity thieves) or other mirroring spywaremight have been introduced into the victim's devices, givingfraudsters access to passwords and other confidential information.

Ms. Jacklin said neither police nor bank investigators hadexamined her devices to check if and how her security wascompromised.

FNB said: "We advise clients of the appropriate scans that can bedone to their devices to determine if malware exists on theirdevices before they can attempt to reset their password.

"While our investigation is not yet finalized, our preliminaryfindings do not indicate the presence of a key logger."

Leading forensic scientist David Klatzow, who is familiar with theJacklin case said: "The apparent lack of enthusiasm in theinvestigation -- coupled with the intimate knowledge of the innerworkings of the bank and the cellular provider -- do little todispel a suspicion that this might well have been an inside job.

"In these cases, the overriding concern of the banks and cellphonecompanies seems to be not being held liable.

"I'll be advising victims of this kind of abuse to join forces andinstitute a class action."

Timeline of a cyber-crime

Gail Jacklin's tribulations date back to the second last day oflast year, when much of the country -- criminals excluded -- hadclosed shop in festive mood.

She tried -- from a seaside retreat on the South Coast -- to login to FNB's internet banking website on December 30. Twice, shewas rejected when the system failed to recognize her PIN/password.

A little later on the same day, her MTN contract cellphone stoppedfunctioning, registering a persistent "no service" message.

After attempts to sort out the glitch by rebooting the handsetfailed, Ms. Jacklin called the MTN helpline the next day --New Year's Eve. The consultant said the account was to be"refreshed" and would soon be functioning again.

This did not happen. On New Year's Day, Ms. Jacklin returned toCape Town, where she was contacted by a distraught Shannon Kruyt,one of her partners in her Claremont Audiology practice.Ms. Kruyt told her the company's FNB account had been hacked andmore than R200 000 fraudulently transferred.

Ms. Jacklin called FNB's fraud reporting line to lock her FNBaccounts (both company and private) to prevent any furthertransfers of funds.

Her cellphone, meanwhile continued to show the "no service"message, but with cellular dealerships shut on January 1, therewas nothing further that could be done.

On January 2, after opening a case at Claremont Police Station,Ms. Jacklin (as advised by the FNB fraud unit) went to theClaremont branch of FNB to change the access details on herprivate account. This had not yet been hacked by this time.

However Ms. Jacklin's identity could not be verified via hercellphone, which still had no service, and the process wasaborted.

Next stop was MTN's Claremont branch, where it was discovered aSIM swop had been done on Ms. Jacklin's cellphone, this not havingbeen picked up by the MTN call centre, and measures were taken toreactivate Ms. Jacklin's SIM.

That evening a torrent of notifications streamed in asMs. Jacklin's service was restored. She discovered her private FNBaccount had been defrauded of R120 000 after the failed attempt tochange her details.

Ms. Jacklin has been in contact with MTN and FNB personnel, aswell as the police.

Fraudsters just four steps away from your cash

Experts say SIM swop internet banking fraud is a four-stageprocess.

First the prospective victim's customer access codes have to beobtained. This is usually done by "phishing" -- conning orscamming the fraudsters' target into revealing passwords and(where applicable) customer-selected PIN numbers. Sometimes thisinvolves a fraudster posing by email as an agent of the bank andrequiring the customer to confirm information.

A more sophisticated version uses link in the email which takesthe victim to a fake website copied from the bank's.

Alternatively, malware can be introduced into the software of acomputer or smartphone, giving the fraudster access to protectedcontents.

This content is sold to the next level of scamsters on what isknown as the "Dark Market". At this point, accounts compliantwith Financial Intelligence Centre Act (Fica) regulations, whichrequire well-verified identities for all bank accounts, need to beaccessed.

According to investigators, this is done by "renting" Fica-registered accounts from legitimate holders -- usually poor people-- who are not able to identify them.

Finally, the victim's passwords are matched with his or hercellphone and a SIM swop engineered. At this point the fraudcomes into play. The fraudster enters the internet bankingaccount and makes a series of one-off payments.

The bank then sends out one-time-passwords to authenticate thetransaction. These are received on a SIM-swopped cellphone and"authenticated". And the money is withdrawn.

Accounts can also be hacked by bank employees, especially if theyact in concert with accomplices in cellphone companies.

FLINT, MI: Water Crisis Class Actions Face Potential Pitfalls-------------------------------------------------------------Gary Ridley, writing for MLive reports that lawyers may be in fora "battle royale" as lawsuits continue to mount over the city'swater crisis.

Attorneys Ven Johnson and Steven Liddle were the most-recent toenter the fray as they filed a new federal class-action lawsuitover what they claimed is "the now infamous poisoning of Flint'sresidents with lead from Flint's pipes and service lines."

The lawsuit joins a handful of others already filed in local,state and federal courts over everything from lead poisoning andLegionnaires' Disease to forgiving water payments.

Television commercials in the Flint area that continue toadvertise legal services for those affected by the lead-taintedwater hint that more may be on the way.

But, Christopher Hastings, a professor at Western MichiganUniversity's Cooley Law School, said lawyers representing thecity's residents may have to duke it out among themselves beforethey ever get a chance to take on the local and state agenciesthey accuse in their lawsuits.

If multiple class-action cases are filed over largely the sameaccusations, Hastings said it could ultimately fall onto thecourts to decide which lawyers would represent the class movingforward.

"The courts have to figure out a way to get all these classestogether in the same place," Mr. Hastings said.

Even if the class is certified, which faces potential pitfalls dueto the varied effects the crisis has had on residents, it could bea challenge for the attorneys to overcome some of the obstaclesthat come with suing government agencies, particularly rulesinvolving governmental immunity.

"Sovereign immunity is a substantial issue in all the cases I'velooked at," Mr. Hastings said.

One way around immunity is to claim government workers weregrossly negligent, or acted carelessly in reckless disregard forthe safety or lives of others, in their handling of the crisis.

Mr. Hastings said attorneys may be able to meet that standard forthe local officials involved, but it could prove difficult forstate officials.

In response, Mr. Hastings said attorneys are using "more creativelegal theories," such as allegations of Constitutional violations,to overcome that hurdle.

He added that if the case only moves forward against the city andcity officials, the plaintiffs would effectively be suingthemselves since tax increases to cover the expense of the case.

Flowers Foods is a Georgia corporation with its principal place ofbusiness in Thomasville, Georgia. Flowers Foods hires individuals,whom it classifies as independent contractors, to distribute itsproducts by delivering them to commercial retailers and stockingthe products on store shelves. The Company employs distributors in31 states throughout the southern and eastern parts of the UnitedStates.

This now settled and closed case concerned a class action againstthe County of Fresno for alleged constitutional violations at theFresno County Jail.

Plaintiffs' claims were based on allegations that CountyDefendants failed to provide adequate medical, mental health, anddental care to inmates, failed to protect inmates with healthissues from violence from other inmates, and discriminated againstinmates with health issues. Plaintiffs sought declaratory andinjunctive relief to remedy a number of allegedly dangerous andunconstitutional conditions at the jail.

Dominic Hanna moves to intervene in order to move to unsealrecords in the closed case. The Magistrate Judge denied Hanna'smotion to unseal and therefore denied as moot his motion tointervene. Hanna now moves for reconsideration of that order.

In his Memorandum Decision and Order dated February 1, 2016available at http://is.gd/O4okC1from Leagle.com, Judge O'Neill denied Hanna's motion for reconsideration.

The Court concludes that the compelling interest of maintainingthe integrity of the judicial system outweighs Hanna's and thepublic's interests in unsealing the expert reports.

On certain vehicles equipped with air brakes and rear airsuspension, the rear service brake and parking brake air linescould contact the rear axle housing during vehicle operation,causing the lines to wear. Over time, this could result in an airleak in the service or parking brake lines. An air leak in theparking brake lines could result in inadvertent parking brakeapplication. An air leak in the rear service brake line couldaffect rear service brake performance, potentially resulting in aloss of rear service brake function. These conditions couldincrease the risk of crash causing injury and/or damage toproperty: Correction: Dealers will inspect air lines for damageand repair as necessary, as well as install revised rear brakechambers.

Certain vehicles equipped with dual rear wheels may have beenmanufactured with defective rear drive axle shafts. Under certainconditions, these axles could fracture and break without warning.This could result in a loss of motive power or cause unintendedvehicle movement when the transmission shift lever is placed inthe Park position, increasing the risk of a crash causing injuryand/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace bothrear axle shafts.

FREEDOM GROUP: Judge Hears Arguments in Sandy Hook Shooting------------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reports that lawyers for a gun maker andfamilies of some Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre victimssquared off in a Connecticut courtroom on Feb. 22 over whether afederal law prevents the families' wrongful death lawsuittargeting the AR-15 rifle used to kill 20 children and six adultsin the 2012 shooting.

Judge Barbara Bellis in Bridgeport heard arguments but didn'tissue a ruling on Feb. 22. She said she would rule within thenext two months on whether the lawsuit should go forward towardtrial or be dismissed.

The families of nine children and adults killed at the Newtownschool and a teacher who survived the attack say the AR-15 is ahighly lethal military weapon that should not be sold to thepublic. They're suing Freedom Group, the Madison, North Carolina,parent company of Bushmaster Firearms, which made the AR-15 usedin the school shooting.

Lawyers for Freedom Group said the company is protected by a 2005federal law that shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits overcriminal use of their products. They said Congress passed theProtection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act after determining suchlawsuits were an abuse of the legal system.

Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the victims' families, said theirlawsuit is believed to be the first to be filed under an exceptionlisted in the federal law that allows litigation against companiesthat know, or should know, that their weapons are likely to beused in a way that risks injury to others. The families areseeking unspecified monetary damages and hope the lawsuitpersuades gun companies to not sell AR-15s to the public.

"This is an instrument of war designed for the battlefield that ismarketed and sold to the general public," said Mark Barden, whoseson Daniel was killed in the massacre. "We're just asking foraccountability."

Nicole Hockley, whose son Dylan died in the shooting, said theplaintiffs are hoping to prevent AR-15s from being used in othermass shootings.

"He chose the AR-15," she said of Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza,"because he was aware of how many shots it could get out, howlethal it was, the way it was designed, that it would serve hisobjective of killing as many people as possible in the shortesttime possible."

State police say Mr. Lanza, 20, killed his victims with aBushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, an AR-15 model, on Dec. 14, 2012.Mr. Lanza killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their Newtown homewith a different gun before going to the school a few miles away,and then killed himself as police arrived. Nancy Lanza legallybought the rifle, state police said.

Debate over the 2005 law has resurfaced in this year'spresidential campaign. Hillary Clinton has criticized fellowDemocrat Bernie Sanders' support of the 2005 law when it passed.Sanders is now backing a bill to repeal the law.

Gun rights advocates posted to social media and gave interviewswith traditional media on Feb. 22 criticizing the Newtownfamilies' lawsuit.

"It is unconscionable for plaintiffs to assert that a company whomanufactures a legal product would do so with any fore-thoughtthat it was somehow acceptable to commit murder with theirproducts," Scott Wilson, president of the Connecticut CitizensDefense League, told Hartford-area station WFSB-TV.

GALENA BIOPHARMA: April 21 Settlement Approval Hearing------------------------------------------------------Galena Biopharma, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company committed tothe development and commercialization of targeted oncologytherapeutics that address major unmet medical needs, on Feb. 16disclosed that on February 4, 2016, the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Oregon (the "Court") issued an orderpreliminarily approving the proposed settlement by and among theCompany, the Court-appointed co-lead plaintiffs, and all nameddefendants in the shareholder derivative action entitled In ReGalena Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 3:10-cv-00382-SI (the "Settlement").

A hearing to determine whether the Court should issue an order offinal approval of the Settlement has been scheduled for April 21,2016, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 13B of the Mark O. Hatfield U.S.Courthouse, 1000 SW Third Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Pursuant tothe Court's order, any objections to the Settlement must be filedin writing with the Clerk of the Court at least fourteen (14) daysbefore April 21, 2016. Pursuant to the Court's order, any suchobjections must comply with the terms and conditions set forth inthe Notice to Current Galena Stockholders (the "Notice"), which isfurther described below.

Additional information concerning the terms of the proposedSettlement, the September 4, 2013 hearing, and the requirementsfor objections can be found in the Summary Notice of Settlement ofGalena Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Action and Settlement Hearing(the "Summary Notice"), which appears below, in the AmendedStipulation and Agreement of Settlement, a copy of which wasattached as an exhibit to a Form 8-K filed by the Company with theUnited States Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16,2016, and in the Notice, which is accessible for viewing on theCompany's website at:

TO: ALL OWNERS OF GALENA BIOPHARMA, INC. ("GALENA" OR THE"COMPANY") COMMON STOCK AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016 ("CURRENT GALENASHAREHOLDERS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the parties to the above-captionedstockholder derivative action, as set forth in In re GalenaBiopharma Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:14-cv-382-SI(the "Action"), have reached a settlement (the "Settlement") toresolve the issues raised in the Action. The parties have enteredinto an Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the"Stipulation") dated February 1, 2016 setting forth the terms ofthe Settlement.1 The Settlement, if approved by the Court, wouldfully, finally and forever resolve the Action on the terms setforth in the Stipulation.

1 Unless otherwise defined, all capitalized terms contained inthis Summary Notice shall have the same definitions as set forthin the Stipulation.

The Action and Settlement address claims alleging that certaincurrent and former directors and officers of Galena breached theirfiduciary duties by hiring a stock promotion firm to artificiallyincrease the share price of Galena stock and then improperlyprofiting from that stock price increase. As part of theSettlement, Galena's directors' and officers' insurers have paidor caused to be paid the amount of fifteen million dollars($15,000,000) to the Company. In addition, defendants Hillsberg,Kriegsman, Nisi, Galliker, Chin and Ashton shall forfeit all ofthe stock options granted to them by Galena in November 2013totaling 1,200,000 shares. Galena has implemented or, to theextent Galena has not done so, will implement certain corporategovernance reforms as specifically set forth at Exhibit A of theStipulation. Finally, defendant Mark Ahn has forfeited certaincontractual severance payments valued at approximately $880,000,as well as 1,181,250 stock options with an intrinsic value ofapproximately $503,062, and Galena shall cancel any and alloutstanding stock options awarded to Lidingo Holdings LLC inAugust 2013.

After negotiation of the principal terms of the Settlement,Plaintiffs' Counsel and Galena, with the substantial assistanceand oversight of an experienced mediator, separately negotiated atarm's-length the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses to beawarded by the Court to Plaintiffs' Counsel. In recognition ofthe substantial benefits provided to Galena and Current GalenaStockholders as a result of the initiation, prosecution, pendency,and settlement of the Action, Galena D&O insurance carriers shall,upon Court approval, pursuant to the timetable provided in theStipulation, pay or cause to be paid to Plaintiffs' Counselattorneys' fees and expenses in the total amount of five milliondollars ($5,000,000) (the "Fee Award"). Plaintiffs' Counsel mayalso apply on behalf of Plaintiffs for incentive awards in theamount of $5,000 each (the "Incentive Awards") based on thesubstantial benefits they have helped to create for Galena andCurrent Galena Stockholders. The Incentive Awards shall be fundedfrom the Fee Award, to the extent that the Settlement is approvedin whole or part. The Fee Award is also the result of Galena andthe Board's acceptance of a mediator's proposal. The currentBoard, in the exercise of its independent business judgment, hasagreed to the Fee Award, and the Parties mutually agree that theFee Award is fair and reasonable in light of the substantialbenefits conferred upon Galena and Current Galena Stockholders bythis Settlement.

The Individual Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, allallegations of wrongdoing and that they have any liability on theclaims asserted in the Action. Galena also has denied andcontinues to deny the claims in the Action.

PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that pursuant to an Order of the UnitedStates District Court for the District of Oregon (the "Court"), ahearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held before theHonorable Michael H. Simon on Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 11:00a.m. in Courtroom 13B of the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse,1000 SW Third Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204: (i) to determinewhether the terms and conditions of the Settlement are fair,reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of Galena and theCurrent Galena Stockholders; (ii) to determine whether the FinalOrder and Judgment should be entered dismissing the Action withprejudice, releasing the Released Claims, and enjoining and/orbarring prosecution of any and all Released Claims; (iii) todetermine whether the Fee Award and Incentive Awards should beapproved; and (iv) to consider such other matters as may properlycome before the Court. The Settlement Hearing may be continued bythe Court at the Settlement Hearing, or at any adjourned sessionthereof without further notice to Current Galena Stockholders.

A detailed Notice of Settlement of Galena Biopharma, Inc.Derivative Action and Settlement Hearing (the "Notice") describingin greater detail the Action, the proposed Settlement, Fee Award,and Incentive Awards and the rights of Current Galena Stockholderswith regard to the Settlement, Fee Award, and Incentive Awards isavailable on Galena's website at https://www.galenabiopharma.comThe Stipulation is also available on Galena's website athttps://www.galenabiopharma.com and may be inspected at the Officeof the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Districtof Oregon located at the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse, 1000S.W. Third Ave., Portland, OR 97204, during regular business hoursof each business day.

If you are a Current Galena Stockholder, your rights to pursuecertain derivative claims on behalf of Galena may be affected bythe Settlement. Any Current Galena Stockholder wishing to assertan objection to the Settlement, Fee Award, or Incentive Awardsmust, at least fourteen (14) days prior to the Settlement Hearing,(1) file with the Clerk of the Court a written objection to theSettlement, Fee Award, or Incentive Awards setting forth: (a) thenature of the objection; (b) proof of ownership of Galena commonstock through the date of the Settlement Hearing, including thenumber of shares of Galena common stock held by the shareholderand the date(s) of purchase; and (c) any documentation in supportof such objection; and (2) if a Current Galena Stockholder intendsto appear and requests to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, suchshareholder must have, in addition to the requirements of (1)above, filed with the Clerk of Court: (a) a written notice of suchshareholder's intention to appear; (b) a statement that indicatesthe basis for such appearance; and (c) the identities of anywitnesses the shareholder intends to call at the SettlementHearing and a statement as to the subjects of their testimony.

Current Galena Stockholders have the right to object to theSettlement, Fee Award, and Incentive Awards in the manner providedherein, and failure to object in the manner provided in the Noticeat least fourteen (14) days prior to the Settlement Hearing willbe deemed a waiver of all objections. Any Current GalenaStockholder who fails to properly object will be bound by theFinal Order and Judgment to be entered and the releases to begiven, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

Any inquiries regarding the Settlement, Fee Award, IncentiveAwards or the Action should be directed to Plaintiffs' Counsel:

Galena Biopharma, Inc. -- http://www.galenabiopharma.com-- is a biopharmaceutical company committed to the development andcommercialization of targeted oncology therapeutics that addressmajor unmet medical needs. Galena's development portfolio isfocused primarily on addressing the rapidly growing patientpopulations of cancer survivors by harnessing the power of theimmune system to prevent cancer recurrence. The Company'spipeline consists of multiple mid- to late-stage clinical assets,including novel cancer immunotherapy programs led by NeuVax(TM)(nelipepimut-S) and GALE-301. NeuVax is currently in a pivotal,Phase 3 clinical trial with several concurrent Phase 2 trialsongoing both as a single agent and in combination with othertherapies. GALE-301 is in a Phase 2a clinical trial in ovarianand endometrial cancers and in a Phase 1b given sequentially withGALE-302.

Hershey Canada Inc. is recalling certain Glosette brand Raisinsfrom the marketplace because they may contain peanut which is notdeclared on the label. People with an allergy to peanut should notconsume the recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalledproducts should be thrown out or returned to the store where theywere purchased.

If you have an allergy to peanut, do not consume the recalledproduct as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with theconsumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by the company. The Canadian FoodInspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safetyinvestigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. Ifother high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify thepublic through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productfrom the marketplace.

HIGH END: Faces "Kel-Mar" Lawsuit Alleging Breach of Contract-------------------------------------------------------------Kel-Mar Interiors, Inc., on behalf of itself and all otherssimilarly situated as Lien Law Trust Beneficiaries of the Trustwhich HIGH END NEW YORK, INC. is a Trustee, v. High End New York,Inc. d/b/a "High End Electrical Contracting Corporation" and MarkRamdeen, Case No: 650702/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of New York,February 11, 2016), alleges breach of contract, violation of NewYork Lien Law, and unjust enrichment.

On certain school busses equipped with a Ricon S-Series wheelchairlift, the platform could potentially crack due to bent knucklelink arms and/or defective bearing. Overtime, the platform couldseparate of the rear portion of the pivot plate making the liftinoperable and putting the lift operator at risk of injury.Correction: Owners will need to make an appointment with the localRicon Dealer to have the lift inspected and repaired.

On certain buses equipped with a Ricon S-Series wheelchair lift,the platform could potentially crack due to bent knuckle link armsand/or defective bearing. Overtime, the platform could separate ofthe rear portion of the pivot plate making the lift inoperable andputting the lift operator at risk of injury. Correction: Ownerswill need to make an appointment with the local Ricon Dealer tohave the lift inspected and repaired.

The Illinois State Lottery (known simply as the Illinois Lottery)is an American lottery for the U.S. state of Illinois that isoperated by the Northstar Lottery Group.

A lottery generates revenue by selling lottery tickets to create a"pool" of money, awarding a portion of that "pool" to the winner,and remitting the remainder of the "pool" to the government. Assuch, lotteries necessarily have a positive cash-flow. Forexample, in 2010, American lotteries generated $58 billion inconsumer spending, resulting in a $17 billion profitfor the States.

On July 1, 2015, Defendants ceased making payments to individualswho won in excess of $25,000 from any game offered by the IllinoisState Lottery.

ILLINOIS: Four Prisons Face Class Action Over Inmate Abuses-----------------------------------------------------------George Gallanis, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reportsthat a class action lawsuit filed by hundreds of prisoners fromfour Southern Illinois state prisons against guards, wardens andother officials is going ahead after district court judge's recentdecision giving the go-ahead to the questioning of state officialsunder oath. The lawsuit, filed in March 2014, is seeking damagesfor injuries stemming from cruel and unusual punishment by prisonofficials and an injunction prohibiting further such practices.

The lawsuit, Ross v. Gossett, was filed by an Illinois prisoner onbehalf of hundreds of prisoners who faced similar abuse at otherSouthern Illinois prisons. Ross charges that in April 2014 anIllinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) tactical unit known as"Orange Crush" "beat, abused, and sexually humiliated theplaintiff, destroyed his property, and otherwise inflictedpunishment for the sole purpose of causing humiliation andneedless pain." Ross and other prisoners were also subjected tostrip searches that they argue violated several provisions of thePrison Rape Elimination Act National Standards.

The lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court forthe Southern District of Illinois. The hundreds of prisoners werelocated at four state prisons during the time of the incidents:Menard, Illinois River, Big Muddy and Lawrence. Two hundredthirty-six prison system guards and officials have been named asdefendants, including the wardens of each prison. Chicago-basedfirms Loevy & Loevy and Uptown People's Law Center arerepresenting the prisoners.

Speaking to the Illinois based Belleville News-Democrat, AlanMills, civil rights attorney for the Uptown People's Law Center,stated, "We get lots of complaints where two or three people saythey were abused by this sort of thing, but not where it's fourdifferent prisons right in a row doing the same exact things ineach of these prisons by the same group of officers. . . . Thepurpose of this was humiliation. There was no question that thewhole point of this was to belittle, dehumanize and intimidateprisoners."

The lawsuit claims the "Orange Crush" unit traveled from prison toprison, inflicting terror and abuse as they went. Within thelawsuit are passages littered with harrowing images. In onepassage, it states:

"For example, Mr. Ross and other prisoners at Illinois River weresubject to: a humiliating strip search in front of female officersand orders to prisoners to touch their genitals and then use thesame hand to open their mouths; painfully tight handcuffing withtheir palms outward; orders to march from their housing units tothe gym at the facility with their heads on the backs of theprisoners ahead of them in line so that one man's genitals were indirect contact with the next man's buttocks (referred to by theOrange Crush team as 'Nuts to Butts'); violent attacks byDefendant Orange Crush Officers when prisoners broke thatformation; and orders to stand in a stress position for severalhours. Throughout the entire shakedown, Defendant Orange CrushOfficers hurled epithets at the prisoners, chanted 'punish theinmate,' and told them that this was punishment for their sins."

If one were to read such a passage without knowing where it tookplace, one could easily assume this was a recounting of thesadistic, sexual humiliation meted out by US soldiers to prisonersat Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. These abuses are torture, plainand simple.

"This is above and beyond what I've seen ever in the 35 years I'vebeen doing this kind of work," said attorney Alan Mills. "This ispart of some official policy. Higher-ups in IDOC will have toexplain what in the world they were thinking when they gave thesepeople this kind of direction and leeway."

Mr. Mills further stated, "What sets this case apart is that asupposedly elite unit of specially trained officers brutalizedover a thousand prisoners in four different prisons, in whatappears to have been an officially sanctioned campaign of verbalintimidation, sexual harassment and blatant physical abuse."

The state-sanctioned torture of these prisoners corresponds to anever-growing prison population. According to the ACLU, from 1978to 2014, the American prison population rose by 408 percent, with80,000 to 100,000 of prisoners currently being held in some formof isolated confinement. Inside and outside the prison walls,there is the ever-growing militarization and brutality of thepolice who, according to killedbypolice.net, killed 1,205 peoplelast year.

In addition, police forces and prisons are increasing recruitingsoldiers returning from the Iraq, Afghanistan and otherbattlefields where US armed forces suppressed local populationshostile to the neocolonial occupation of their countries. As theeconomic and social crisis in America worsens and class tensionsreach a breaking point, American imperialism is increasinglybringing its brutal and sadistic methods home.

Defendants own and/or maintain a pool service and repair companythat provides services throughout the State of New Jersey. Inca isheadquartered in North Plainfield, Somerset County, New Jersey.

Garrecoa was employed by Defendants full time as a laborer,performing driving and cleaning duties. He routinely worked 6-7days per week at approximately seventy-two hours per week withoutovertime compensation over 40 hours per week, notes the complaint.

On certain vehicles, the power steering hose retention clamp mayhave been incorrectly positioned during assembly. This couldresult in a detachment of the low pressure return hose, resultingin a large volume leak of power steering fluid, which wouldrequire greater driver effort to steer the vehicle. In somecircumstances, the leaking fluid in the presence of an ignitionsource, could result in a fire causing injury and/or damage toproperty. Correction: Dealers will inspect the return powersteering hose for proper placement of the hose clamp, andreposition the hose clamp as needed.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Awards $72 Million in Talcum Suit---------------------------------------------------------Alan Scher Zagier, writing for The Associated Press, reports thata Missouri jury has awarded $72 million to the family of anAlabama woman who died from ovarian cancer, which she said wascaused by using Johnson & Johnson's well-known baby powder andother products containing talcum.

The civil suit by Jackie Fox of Birmingham was part of a broaderclaim in the city of St. Louis Circuit Court involving nearly 60people. Her son took over as plaintiff following his mother'sOctober 2015 death at 62, more than two years after her diagnosis.

Marvin Salter of Jacksonville, Florida, said his late mother, whowas a foster parent, used the iconic talcum powder as a bathroomstaple for decades.

"It just became second nature, like brushing your teeth," he said."It's a household name."

A Fox attorney said the jury verdict on Feb. 22, which came afternearly five hours of deliberations at the conclusion of a three-week trial, was the first such case among more than 1,000nationally to result in a jury's monetary award.

The jury said that Fox was entitled to $10 million in actualdamages and $62 million in punitive damages. Attorney James Ondersaid he "absolutely" expects Johnson & Johnson -- the world'sbiggest maker of health care products -- to appeal the verdict.

The New Jersey-based company previously has been targeted byhealth and consumer groups over possibly harmful ingredients initems including its iconic Johnson's No More Tears baby shampoo.

In May 2009, a coalition of groups called the Campaign for SafeCosmetics began pushing Johnson & Johnson to eliminatequestionable ingredients from its baby and adult personal careproducts. After three years of petitions, negative publicity anda boycott threat, the company agreed in 2012 to eliminate theingredients 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde, both considered probablehuman carcinogens, from all products by 2015.

Spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said on Feb. 23 that the New Jersey-based company was considering its next legal move. In a writtenstatement, she said the verdict "goes against decades of soundscience proving the safety of talc as a cosmetic ingredient inmultiple products," citing supportive research by the U.S. Foodand Drug Administration and National Cancer Institute.

At trial, Fox's attorneys introduced into evidence a September1997 internal memo from a Johnson & Johnson medical consultantsuggesting that "anybody who denies (the) risks" between "hygenic"talc use and ovarian cancer will be publicly perceived in the samelight as those who denied a link between smoking cigarettes andcancer: "denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to thecontrary."

Talc is naturally occurring, mined from the soil and composed ofmagnesium, silicon, oxygen, and hydrogen. It's widely used incosmetics and personal care products, such as talcum powder, toabsorb moisture, prevent caking and improve the product's feel.

Nora Freeman Engstrom, a Stanford University law professor notinvolved in the Missouri case, said it's unlikely the $72 millionaward will survive, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court, in arecent series of rulings, has maintained that appellate courtsclamp down on punitive damages.

"Big jury verdicts do tend to be reined in during the course ofthe appellate process, and I expect that to be the case here," shetold The Associated Press.

The verdict on Feb. 22 "doesn't bode well for Johnson & Johnson"as it faces at least 1,200 still-pending lawsuits and possiblythousands more, she said.

"This case clearly was a bellwether, and clearly the jury has seenthe evidence and found it compelling," she said, concluding "thejury was distressed by the company's conduct."

The action arises out of allegedly deceptive and misleadinglabeling and marketing of merchandise by Kohl's Department Stores.The amended complaint alleges that Kohl's has engaged in falseadvertising of its merchandise by listing fictional "comparisonprices" at which it had never previously sold that merchandise andthat were "intentionally selected so that Kohl's could advertisephantom markdowns."

Kohl's moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted.

After submitting three rounds of written briefing in oppositionand participating in oral argument, Plaintiff moved to amend hercomplaint. Plaintiff also filed a motion to certify a question oflaw to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

In his Memorandum and Order dated February 1, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/gNebIWfrom Leagle.com, Judge Saylor, IV granted Kohl's motion to dismiss as to all counts and denied Mulder'smotions to amend the complaint and to certify questions to theMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

The complaint does not allege a legally cognizable injury, theCourt said. There is no private right of action under the Code ofMassachusetts Regulations. The amended complaint also purports tostate a claim based on an alleged violation of the Federal TradeCommission Act. Because the amended complaint adequately allegesan unfair or deceptive act under Chapter 93A by sufficientlyalleging a violation of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, theCourt need not determine whether it has also adequately alleged anunfair or deceptive act in violation of the Federal TradeCommission Act. Plaintiff has not suffered an economic injury;among other things, she has suffered no loss, and there is no sumof money that could be awarded to her that could "compensate" herwithout providing a windfall. It therefore appears that thecomplaint fails to plead a cause of action under Chapter 93A,based on the absence of a cognizable injury.

Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq. of Kyros Law Offices, P.C. and S. JamesBoumil, Esq. of Boumil Law Offices serve as counsel for PlaintiffEllen Mulder

In August 2011, deputies determined that an inmate at Los AngelesCounty Men's Central Jail was an informant for the FBI after theyrecovered a cell phone that was linked to federal agents. SheriffBaca later acknowledged that he had been aware of the plan andhad, in fact, directed sheriff's investigators to "do everythingbut put handcuffs" on the agent, according to prosecutors andcourt records.

Within hours, Baca was in a federal courtroom pleading guilty to asingle felony count that could put him behind bars for up to sixmonths.

The case against Sheriff Baca is the result of an investigation bythe FBI, and is one in a series of cases resulting from aninvestigation into corruption and civil rights abuses at countyjail facilities in downtown Los Angeles. That same month Tanakaand Capt. Tom Carey met with the USA attorney and asked the officeto work with the department to investigate the allegations ofcivil rights violations and exclude the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, prosecutors say.

In a brief typed statement signed "Lee Baca retired sheriff", hesaid he had made a mistake and accepted being held accountable.The case against Tanaka is scheduled to go to trial on March 22.After jailers discovered the phone and concluded the inmate wascooperating with the FBI, Sheriff Baca ordered the man, identifiedin the charging information as "AB", isolated from the rest of thejail population. Under the plea agreement, Baca would not servemore than six months in prison.

David Bowdich, the FBI's Los Angeles chief, said Sheriff Baca hadcontinuously denied playing a role in the corruption even as hisrank-and-file deputies faced prison time.

Sheriff Baca always denied knowing anything about abuses in thejail or the evasion with federal investigators, but with questionsmounting he announced in 2014 that he would not run forreelection.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Brandon Fox told the court that SheriffBaca had acted "deliberately and with knowledge that the statementwas untrue" and knew he was breaking the law. It's not clear ifthat included providing testimony against Baca.

"I don't see myself as the future", he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California -- whichfiled a federal class-action lawsuit against Sheriff Baca and histop commanders in 2012 over the alleged use of excessive force byjail guards against county jail inmates -- applauded the Feb. 17action. The next day, two LASD sergeants approached the agent andthreatened her with arrest.

In prosecuting the matter that became known as "OperationPandora's Box", the U.S. Attorney's Office showed tenacity, yes,but also the true meaning of justice by not stopping with theconvictions of a dozen or so lower-level players or with theongoing prosecution of former undersheriff Paul Tanaka, who is dueto face trial soon.

MC2 MODEL: Models File Class Action in New York-----------------------------------------------The Sun reports that from the second they land in the Big Apple,doe-eyed, leggy models are dreaming of Vogue covers and LeonardoDiCaprio dates. But the truth is, for most, the years ahead willbe full of exploitation, starvation and misrepresentation.

"We were young and our eyes got sort of glittered . . . Agenciestook advantage of that," says Marcelle Almonte, 34, who's suingMC2 Model Management, the agency she worked with in Miami and NYCfrom 2005 to 2006.

"They took advantage of our ignorance and desire to make a career,and they capitalized on things we didn't know, which were ourlabor rights," says Ms. Almonte.

As soon as a model signs with an agency, they're likely gettingconned, say the plaintiffs, who were pooled together for theclass-action suit by the law firm Quinn Emanuel.

"The perk of signing with an agency is that they give you thisability to move to Miami or New York . . . and they sell you theidea of living in a models' apartment," says Ms. Almonte, who nowresides in Miami and is a stay-at-home mother. "You don't have topay a deposit and they bill you [once] you start making money."

So when MC2 offered her a two-bedroom apartment for $1,850 permonth in Miami (food and housekeeping not included), Ms. Almontejumped at the opportunity, despite the fact that it meant livingwith eight other girls -- one of whom slept on the living roomcouch.

In 2005, each of the nine girls in that apartment paid equal rent,bringing the monthly total MC2 collected to $16,650. The lawsuitalleges that two-bedroom pads in the same building currently gofor about $2,900, suggesting that MC2 was profiting at least$13,750 a month.

While agencies typically pocket a 20 per cent commission from themodel and a 20 per cent commission from the client for each job,models are still billed for any related costs: whether it be planetickets to travel to gigs or having their books delivered topotential clients.

According to Grecia Palomares, Wilhelmina -- her agency from 2004to 2009 -- even charged models a $215 yearly "Internet fee" tohave their photos on the agency's Web site.

She recounts how Curvexpo, an annual lingerie and swimwear expo,paid $1,000 to reuse her image for an event. But Ms. Palomares-- who has modelled for Cosmopolitan magazine and currently worksas a photographer in NYC -- only received a check for $300 fromWilhelmina. The agency had deducted $700 for "expenses" with nosupporting documentation.

"Nothing's transparent," says Louisa Raske, 34, who is suing NextModel Management (which represented her from 2000 to 2001),Wilhelmina (2001 to 2005) and Major (2005 to 2006). She's posedfor L'Oreal and Elle magazine and still models in Miami, workingwith a boutique agency. "They say, 'Well, we needed to charge youbecause we shipped your [portfolio] all over the world.' But youdon't know. You didn't see the FedEx statement."

Ms. Almonte says, "I'd get the bill and be like, 'I would've takena taxi [instead of a car service]. Why did you fly me firstclass?' They don't tell you that the client isn't going to pay foryour flight."

None of the agencies mentioned in this story responded to ThePost's requests for comment.

Alex Shanklin, a former catalogue model (Neiman Marcus, Barneys)was represented by Wilhelmina from 2002 to 2004 and Elite from2004 to 2005. He says the agencies often told him clients werelate with his payments -- but that they would give him an advancefor a 5 per cent fee.

"I couldn't afford to wait," says Mr. Shanklin, 38, now in Houstonand working in real estate. He's lucky to have been paid at all.

Vanessa Perron -- who is suing Next, with whom she worked from2002 to 2009, and MC2, her agency from 2011 to 2015 -- feltpressure to take runway jobs for "trade," industry speak for freeclothes.

Ms. Perron was once sent a box of Marc Jacobs gear, most of whichwas too big or "leftovers," after walking in the designer'sFashion Week show.

"They make you think that if you say no, you don't get exposure,"says Ms. Perron, 31, who now works as a Manhattan restaurantmanager. Plus, at age 18, "I didn't know any better . . . It[sounded] appealing," she adds.

When Ms. Almonte -- who has starred in Bulgari and Coach campaigns-- lived in Miami, the payment delays were so bad that she had toattend "model dinners" four or five times a week, "just to haveenough to eat," she says. At the meals, held at hot spots andorganized by club promoters, professional beauties serve to lurerich, model-loving, bottle-buying men.

Michael Gross, author of "Focus: The Secret, Sexy, SometimesSordid World of Fashion Photographers," out in July, saysmodelling agencies are "just like Las Vegas. The house alwayswins.

"Someone needs to pay for agents' penthouses and cocaine,"Mr. Gross says. "Who is it going to be? The 17-year-old whodoesn't know better until they look back 10 years later and say,'I made a mistake?' "

On Feb. 18, The Post reported that another Manhattan agency, AimModel Management, is being sued for cheating two models and abooker out of $500,000. According to court papers, catwalkersDevon White and Iana Khanashevich can barely afford groceriesbecause agency owner Nole Marin pocketed money owed to them,driving them "directly into poverty while he enjoyed a highlifestyle." Models say speaking up isn't always easy.

"Every time you confront [agencies about billing] . . . there's abacklash," says Ms. Almonte. "It may not be right away. It couldbe them keeping you from a casting you want to go [to] or tellingsomeone you're booked when you're not."

In 2011, a friend of model Carina Vretman, 48, spottedMs. Vretman's face on a Clairol box in England.

The only thing was, that image "was ancient," says Ms. Vretman,who was employed by Wihelmina from 2003 to 2007 and was on thecover of Vogue Spain in 1990. "It's probably been running for atleast 12 years," she says, adding that it wasn't contracted to runthat long.

She contacted Wilhelmina about the reusage fees that must havebeen renegotiated without her knowledge. One year later, theagency coughed up $19,410 (although the model estimates herpayment should have been closer to $100,000).

"Models, when we retire, we're like athletes," says Ms. Vretman,who now lives in Pennsylvania and trains horses professionally."You make a fortune for a while, then you're in the real worldwith no education, starting your life all over again at 35."

In her peak year, Ms. Vretman says she made approximately$250,000, and about $50,000 when starting out. Of the modelsinterviewed for this article, salaries typically ranged from$30,000 a year to $120,000.

Mr. Gross said the likelihood of any of these lookers havingbecome the next Karlie Kloss was slim to none. "How many angelscan dance on the head of a pin?" the author asks.

Plaintiffs say they were regularly told to lose weight, whitentheir teeth, change their hair and tan at the agencies' behest.

In the lawsuit, Melissa Baker, 28, claims that Click, her agencyuntil 2010, repeatedly told the 2008 Sports Illustrated SwimsuitRookie of the Year that her hips were too wide.

And Ms. Perron says she suffered from anorexia as a result ofbadgering about her weight.

"I don't [remember] if the word liposuction was used, but during atime when I was not working as much, it was suggested that I use anew technology . . . that would make my thighs slimmer," says Ms.Perron, who's 5 feet 11 and weighed 110 pounds at her lowest.

But not everyone is sympathetic to the plight of the geneticallyblessed.

Mr. Gross says that maintaining a sample size is an implicit partof the job. And as for the disgruntled plaintiffs complainingabout the lack of transparency, they only have themselves toblame.

"They're so desperate to be [supermodels] that they sign up withsleazeball operators and walk in with their brains basicallyturned off," he adds.

"The modelling industry is a dirty business and everyone isexploited when they're getting started. It's not a prettypicture. It never was a pretty picture, and they let their dreamsget in the way of understanding the game that they're agreeing toplay."

MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Violated NJCFA, "Marron" Suit Claims---------------------------------------------------------Anne Marron, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, v. McCormick & Company, Inc., theDefendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00104 (Columbia Dist., January 20,2016), seeks to recover damages, actual statutory or punitive,restitution, and/or equitable relief from McCormick based onallegations that the Defendant did not disclose the material factthat it reduced the amount of pepper in the McCormick and store-branded tins and grinders.

Faced with rising raw material costs and promising itsshareholders cost-savings that would improve its bottom line, onor about January 1, 2015, McCormick reduced the amount of blackpepper in its iconic red and white spice tins by 25 percent, whileleaving the size of and price for the tins exactly the same.McCormick also reduced the fill in its black peppercorn grinders,while maintaining size and price.

McCormick was allegedly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs forviolation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and unjustenrichment.

McCormick manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoningmixes, condiments, and other flavorful products to the foodindustry worldwide. It operates through two segments, Consumer andIndustrial. The company is based in Sparks, Maryland

The suit, filed Feb. 19, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California, accuses Mercedes of deceivingconsumers with false representations of its BlueTEC vehicles,which it marketed as "the world's cleanest and most advanceddiesel" with "ultra-low emissions, high fuel economy andresponsive performance" that emits "up to 30% lower greenhouse-gasemissions than gasoline." According to the complaint, on-roadtesting confirmed that Mercedes' so-called Clean Diesel carsproduced average on-road NOx emissions that are 19 times higherthan the U.S. standard, with some instantaneous readings as highas 65 times more than the U.S. limit.

"We believe consumers deserve payback from Mercedes for itsfraudulent marketing and sales of these dirty diesels," said SteveBerman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.

The suit seeks relief for those who purchased the affectedvehicles, including injunctive relief in the form of a recall orfree replacement program and restitution including either recoveryof the purchase price or overpayment or diminution in value due toMercedes' misleading statements and omissions regarding theemission levels of its Clean Diesel BlueTEC vehicles.

The lawsuit alleges that the following Mercedes models powered byBlueTEC diesel-fueled engines are affected by the unlawful,unfair, deceptive and otherwise defective emission controlsutilized by Mercedes. Contact Hagens Berman to find out yourrights, if you purchased or leased one of the following affectedBlueTEC vehicles:

The suit's named plaintiff, California resident Gwendolyn (Wendy)Andary, is a longtime supporter of green issues. She is also alongtime fan of Mercedes, particularly in what she thought werethe brand's earth-friendly BlueTEC vehicles, having owned fivedifferent Mercedes models in recent history, two of them beingBlueTEC models.

"From the moment I first heard about them, I believed these carstruly utilized some amazing and groundbreaking technology,"Wendy said. "I thought these cars combined style and being goodto the environment, and I was a proud owner, going well out of myway to find what I thought was the perfect car. I really feltthis brand could do no wrong."

In 2011, Wendy sought to make an informed purchase and looked toMercedes' newest line of touted eco-friendly vehicles -- BlueTEC.

"When I leased the 2011 E350 BlueTEC, I could not believe all theamazing things it would do, and the mileage and safety features ofMercedes just sealed the deal," she said. "I leased an E350BlueTEC and own a GLK 250 BlueTEC specifically because they wereeco-friendly. I was probably one of Mercedes' biggestcheerleaders when it came to these cars."

Due to the automaker's aggressive marketing, Mercedes' BlueTECvehicles were incredibly popular with those seeking a greeneroption. Wendy remained a fan of what she thought was an eco-friendly option from Mercedes, and when her lease was up on herE350 BlueTEC, she purchased another BlueTEC model which shecurrently owns -- a GLK 250 BlueTEC.

"Devastated doesn't even begin to describe it," Wendy said."Mercedes is an automaker that I trusted without a shadow of adoubt, so when they promised these cars performed this way, Ibelieved them. It's inconceivable that a company would attempt tolie to consumers who are doing their best to make informeddecisions and are looking for a safe vehicle that's also safe forthe environment."

Wendy now faces the same reality as more than 100,000 U.S.Mercedes BlueTEC owners -- that Mercedes duped them intopurchasing a vehicle that pollutes well above the EPA-regulatednational limits and is contributing vastly to environmentaldegradation each time they start the engine, according to thecomplaint.

Certain school buses may not conform to Canada Motor VehicleSafety Standard (CMVSS) 131 - School Bus Pedestrian SafetyDevices. The STOP decal may not adhere properly to the stop signand could peel off without warning, which could cause it to failto meet the requirements of the standard. This could increase therisk of injury for the passengers exiting the school bus.Correction: Dealers will replace the defective stop sign.

Midland Funding is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, whichpurchases portfolios of defaulted consumer debts and collectsthem. Its president is Ken Vecchione and has offices at 3111Camino Del Rio North STE 1300 San Diego CA 97218. Midland haselected Corporation Service Company 1127 Broadway St NE, Salem, OR97301 as its registered agent.

Defendants Model Service LLC, Susan Levine, and William Iversargue that Ms. Agerbrink and her counsel should be disqualifiedfrom serving as representatives of the putative collective, andalso oppose certain provisions and procedures related to thePlaintiff's proposed notice.

In his Memorandum and Order dated February 2, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/gBa4tofrom Leagle.com, Judge Francis, IV granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for conditionalcertification and court-authorized notice. The Defendants'arguments that prior settlement demands render Mr. Dugger and Ms.Agerbrink inadequate representatives are premature, and thePlaintiff's motion for conditional certification is granted. Theproposed notice may be disseminated.

"I think it was 1985," he told me in a recent phone interview fromKamloops, British Columbia, where he lives. "Maybe it was 1986."

Some of the details, though, are crystal clear.

He was drafted in the 12th round. A draft publication had writtenof him, "He eats nails for lunch."

Mr. Poeschek knew what that meant. He would be drafted to be anenforcer. To drop the gloves and fight.

And fight he did. For the New York Rangers and the Tampa BayLightning. For the Winnipeg Jets and the St. Louis Blues.

Now he's paying the price.

He has bad insomnia and headaches. He suffers from anxiety andmood swings. His memory wavers. He doesn't like bright lights.

"My wife told me something was wrong," Mr. Poeschek recalls from aconversation not long ago. "That I was changing. That I wasquick to anger."

His problem? Concussions, too many of them to count, have affectedhis health negatively after 14 years as a professional hockeyplayer.

Mr. Poeschek, now 49, is one of 105 former NHL players involved ina federal lawsuit against the league alleging the NHL wasnegligent in explaining to players the seriousness of concussionsand offering better treatment when they occurred.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota, isseeking class action status so that all former NHL players couldbenefit medically from any settlement that might come out of thelegal dispute.

"Although the NHL knew or should have known, as the Plaintiffs didnot, about this scientific evidence concerning concussions,subconcussive impacts, and brain disease, the NHL never toldPlaintiffs or any other member of the Classes about the dangers ofrepeated brain trauma," the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit has received much less attention than its cousin inthe National Football League. Last year, a federal judge approveda nearly $1 billion settlement in a concussion lawsuit brought byformer NFL players, awarding up to $5 million per retired playerwho could prove some level of brain damage or medical conditionbrought on by repeated concussions.

That lawsuit, and growing concern over such brain trauma, has ledthe NFL to make significant changes to its rules, seeking toeliminate violent shots to the head. The league has targeteddefensive players with big fines for violent collisions and it hassupported a nationwide marketing campaign to youth footballcoaches urging a change in how tackling is taught to beginningplayers.

But as the NHL nears its annual playoffs, there hasn't been muchof a buzz over its own lawsuit.

The NHL is fighting the lawsuit and has shown little interest inreaching an NFL-like settlement, though that calculus could changethis fall if the plaintiffs are awarded class action status.

For Mr. Poeschek, he is hoping for a result that leads to rulechanges.

"When you're young, you don't think that fighting is going to hurtyou later on," he says. During fights, Mr. Poeschek's world wouldsometimes go blank.

"For a split second, I would see black," he says. "It seemed alot longer than a split second. You come out of it, and see light,and you keep fighting."

At one point, he says, he asked a team physician in Tampa Bayabout the blackouts, but wasn't offered any guidance onconcussions. During those days, players took hits, got knockedout, and put themselves right back into games. NHL. NFL. Doesn'tmatter.

That's changed, at least to the extent that such things areobserved. Both leagues now have concussion protocols that causeplayers to be kept out of games when diagnosed with concussions.

But how well are those policies working?

In St. Louis, NFL fans will recall the St. Louis Rams game againstthe Baltimore Ravens on Nov. 22 when quarterback Case Keenum wasobviously woozy and disoriented and yet stayed in the game. Andin the NHL, there is the strange case of Calgary Flames defensemanDennis Wideman, who is appealing his 20-game suspension forphysically attacking a referee because he says he was concussed ona previous play and shouldn't have been allowed to stay in thegame.

Mr. Poeschek said he joined the lawsuit because he wants to seepositive changes to the game -- like getting rid of enforcerfights -- but also because he wants his family to have peace ofmind about the care he'll receive as he ages.

Mr. Poeschek knew hockey was a physical game, and he accepted hisrole as an enforcer, even as he tried at times to shed it. Buthe's sure the league could have done more to protect players fromthemselves.

"All I know," he says, "is I'm sure they knew more than I did."

NEWCREST: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $36 Million----------------------------------------------------------Perry Williams, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reportsthat Newcrest Mining has paid $36 million to shareholders whobrought a class action against the miner for breaching itscontinuous disclosure obligations bringing an end to a wretchedperiod for Australia's largest gold producer.

Newcrest said it had agreed to pay the sum to family trusteecompany Earglow, which led an action on behalf of several dozenshareholders who acquired an interest in Newcrest shares betweenAugust 13, 2012 and June 6, 2013.

Earglow is co-owned by Michael Boorne who previously worked as anexecutive director of telco provider NetComm.

Earglow also led a $57.5 million settlement with SigmaPharmaceuticals in 2012 where it successfully claimed thehealthcare company had breached continuous disclosure rules.

In both cases Earglow used Slater & Gordon as its lawyer andComprehensive Legal Funding to fund its litigation.

Sources close to the process told Fairfax Media that between 20and 30 per cent of the $36 million will be kept by the litigationfunding firm.

The class action, which kicked off in July 2014, revolved aroundwhat Earglow said was a breach of continuous disclosure rules andalleged Newcrest had failed to disclose to the market certainmaterial information in relation to expected total gold productionand expected capital expenditure.

On June 7, 2013 Newcrest cut its final dividend, slashed its goldproduction forecast and flagged $6 billion of asset write-downs asit took emergency steps to adjust to a lower gold price.

More than 15 per cent or $2.6 billion in value was wiped off thevalue of Newcrest shares in the 72 hours before the announcementon June 7.

Newcrest made statements that misled or deceived shareholdersabout production forecasts and performance for the 2012 financialyear, Earglow said.

When the class action was launched Slater & Gordon alleged thatNewcrest had no reasonable grounds for ever issuing its goldproduction guidance to the market on August 13, 2012 where it saidgold output would increase to a range of 2.3 million ounces to 2.5million ounces in the 2013 financial year.

"Newcrest has agreed to pay $36 million in full and finalsettlement of the proceeding including interest, litigation costs,and the applicant's legal fees," the company said in a statementto the ASX on Feb. 22.

"The settlement is without any admission of liability by Newcrestand is subject to court approval. The settlement was agreed inthe best interest of Newcrest shareholders, to enable the companyto focus on improving returns for shareholders without the risk,distraction and significant expense of a lengthy trial."

The Melbourne-based miner said it would record the $36 millioncost in its 2016 full-year accounts as a charge to its incomestatement.

The latest payout follows a $1.2 million fine levied againstNewcrest by the Australian Securities and Investments Commissionin 2014 for selectively briefing analysts.

That fine was triggered after Newcrest's investor relations teamdiscussed with senior executives ways to nudge down analysts'forecasts to meet the company's new expectations, even though theyhad not been released to the market.

Emails between former investor relations manager Spencer Cole,head of investment relations Steven Warner and chief financialofficer Gerard Bond showed the company advised analysts to lowertheir forecasts to "get them in the ball park" of revisedproduction figures before a public announcement.

This recall involves NexScene 8 Modes 10M 100 LED String FairyLights for weddings, Christmas parties and holidays (warm whitelights). These lights are identified by model number NX-001 andUPC 084797706024, but other NexScene lights and models may beaffected. The product packaging may have the phrases "HappyDiwali" or "Christmas Decorations" written on it.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled seasonallights and dispose of them according to their local municipalrequirements.

Consumers can also contact Health Canada to provide informationregarding where they purchased their NexScene lights. To reachHealth Canada, Consumer Product Safety, please telephone 1-866-662-0666. Calls will be routed to the nearest regional office.

Consumers are encouraged to check the Recall and Safety AlertsDatabase on the Healthy Canadians website on a regular basis orsubscribe to receive health and safety alerts from the Departmentvia email, RSS feed or Twitter.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibitsrecalled products from being redistributed, sold or even givenaway in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any healthor safety incidents related to the use of this product or anyother consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the ConsumerProduct Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on ProductRecalls website. You can visit this site for more information onother international consumer product recalls.

A putative class of owners and lessees of Nissan Altimasmanufactured in 2002-2006 and Nissan Maximas manufactured in 2004-2008, sued Nissan North America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Company,Ltd., seeking a declaratory judgment that the class vehicles aredefective. Plaintiffs also allege violation of the Magnuson-MossWarranty Act; fraudulent concealment; negligence; unjustenrichment; and violation of various states' consumer protectionlaws.

The parties stipulated to the dismissal of Nissan Motor Companyfrom the case.

Nissan North America, Inc. then moved to dismiss the complaint forlack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Feb. 1, available athttp://is.gd/QngPN5from Leagle.com, Judge Blakey granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First AmendedComplaint in its entirety.

The Court finds that personal jurisdiction over NNA is lacking asto the claims of the out-of-state Plaintiffs, but does exist as tothe claims asserted on behalf of Plaintiff Maria DeMaria and theclass she purports to represent (that is, individuals whosepurchase of Class Vehicles is linked to NNA's activities withinthe state of Illinois).

The Court finds, however, that Plaintiffs have failed to state aclaim for fraudulent concealment, negligence, unjust enrichment orviolation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive TradePractices Act (ICFDTP) or the Illinois Uniform Deceptive TradePractices Act (IUDTPA). The consumer protection claims forviolation of the laws of states other than Illinois (Counts Sixand Nine through Twenty-One) are dismissed for lack of personaljurisdiction. The declaratory judgment, breach of warranty,fraudulent concealment, negligence and unjust enrichment claims(Counts One through Five) are similarly dismissed for lack ofpersonal jurisdiction to the extent they are asserted on behalf ofPlaintiffs whose claims do not arise out of NNA's activitieswithin the State of Illinois.

Plaintiffs' claims for violation of the ICFA and the IUDTPA(Counts Seven and Eight) are dismissed for failure to state aclaim, as are Counts One through Five, to the extent they areasserted on behalf of Plaintiffs whose claims do arise out ofNNA's activities within the State of Illinois. Plaintiffs aregiven leave to amend their complaint to address the deficienciesto the extent they are able to do so consistent with theirobligations under Rule 11.

Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleadingstatements regarding the Company's business, operational andcompliance policies concerning the Company's classification ofwarrants and options, business combination accounting, share-basedcompensation, and other financial and operating results. Nobilishad overstated its net income for the quarter ended March 31, 2015by more than $3.27 million.

Plaintiff acquired Nobilis securities at artificially inflatedprices and lost substantially after the revelation of the allegedcorrective disclosures, the complaint asserts.

Plaintiff worked as a kitchen helper, cook, dishwasher andcleaning employee. He worked a minimum of 72 hours every week,worked 7 days per week and did not take a lunch break. Defendantalso did not provide paystubs and did not employ any time-keepingmethod, asserts the Plaintiff. He allegedly was fired inretaliation of his multiple complaints about his wages.

Patterson Companies is the second largest distributor of dentalsupplies in the United States, incorporated in Minnesota, with itsprincipal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota. Pattersonsells dental supplies to dental practices and laboratoriesnationwide, including dental practices and laboratories in theEastern District of New York.

The parties to this putative Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA) classaction previously notified the Court that they reached asettlement.

Defendant seeks leave to file the following documents under seal:

(1) the settlement agreement; (2) a motion for preliminary approval of the Agreement; (3) a subsequent motion for final approval of the Agreement; and (4) all exhibits to the Preliminary and Final Motions.

In his Order dated February 2, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/tQkO40from Leagle.com, Judge Dalton, Jr. granted in part Pizza Hut's unopposed motion. The parties may redactportions of the settlement agreement and forthcoming motions forapproval that relate to the confidential arbitration proceedings.The parties are DIRECTED to file a redacted version of thesedocuments on the public docket. In all other respects, the motionis denied.

As a threshold matter, the Court finds that Defendant failed toprovide good cause for sealing the Documents to be approved intheir entirety -- that is, Defendant did not show that itsinterest in keeping the information contained in such documentsconfidential outweighs the public's common law right to accessthose documents. Thus, Defendant's request to seal the Documentsto be approved in their entirety is denied.

On certain travel trailers, the certification, tire and loadinginformation labels do not contain correct tire size and load rangeinformation. The labels incorrectly indicate a tire size ofST225/75R15 with E load rating which have an 80 PSI (551 kPa)maximum inflation pressure, while the trailers are fitted withST225/75R15 with D load rating which have a 65PSI (413 kPa)maximum inflation pressure. Incorrect tire pressure could lead totire failure, resulting in loss of vehicle control increasing therisk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.Correction: Labels will be mailed to owners along withinstructions for proper installation.

The Defendants operate a chain of casual dining restaurantsthroughout New York State known as Red Robin Gourmet Burgers(a.k.a. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers and Brews) ("Red Robin").Defendants employed Plaintiff, and those similarly situated toher, as tipped employee -- a Server -- at their restaurants.

Plaintiffs include shift leaders, technicians, operators,laminators, hi-lo drivers and general laborers. They claim to haverendered in excess of 40 hour per work week without overtimecompensation.

Rex Performance Products, LLC f/k/a Michigan Foam and Fabrication,LLC, is a Michigan Limited Liability company that specializes incommercial foam products. Its principal place of business is inMarysville, Michigan.

Maxwell Morgan, LLC is a financial investment firm based inNebraska. It is the parent company of Rex Performance Products,LLC. Its principal place of business is Portland, Oregon.

Don Tate is the President of Rex Performance Products, LLC. RexHansen is President of Maxwell Morgan, LLC. John Ballinger is anexecutive at Maxwell Morgan.

Roadrunner Pizza is a California corporation, organized andexisting under the laws of the State of California. The Companyconducts business in the State of California. It maintains officesand facilities in Los Angeles, California.

Safeway, Inc. is an American supermarket chain that was acquiredby private equity investors led by Cerberus Capital Management inJanuary 2015. The new merged company which includes the Albertsonssupermarket chain has more than 2,200 stores and over 250,000employees which makes it the second largest supermarket chain inNorth America, after The Kroger Company, which has 2,625 stores.Safeway's primary base of operations is in the western and centralUnited States, with some stores located in the Mid-Atlantic regionof the Eastern Seaboard. The company is headquartered inPleasanton, California.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Suit Seeks to Enjoin GSW Arena Construction--------------------------------------------------------------Mission Bay Alliance and Jennifer Wade, on behalf of all othergroups and individuals in San Francisco that are similarlysituated, the Plaintiffs, v. Office of Community Investment andInfrastructure (OICC), Tiffany Bohee, in her capacity as ExecutiveDirector of OCII, OCII Commission, City and County of SanFrancisco (CCSF), CCSF Planning Department, CCSF PlanningCommission, CCSF Municipal Transportation Agency, CCSF Board ofSupervisors, CCSF Board of Appeals, CCSF Entertainment Commissionand Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2016-80002217 (Cal.Super. Ct., January 7, 2016), seeks to enjoin construction of theproposed Golden State Warriors Arena and Event Center (arenaproject) in the Mission Bay neighborhood of San Francisco, and toset aside all approvals relating to the arena project.

The arena project spans eleven acres and four city blocks. It islocated six blocks away from another major stadium, the SanFrancisco Giants' AT&T Park, and in the center of Mission Bay, apeninsula with limited road access and public transportation. Theproposed arena will regularly attract 18,000 visitors duringevening rash hours, including thousands by car, to attend regularseason basketball games, playoff games, concerts, and conventions.

The City and County of San Francisco has created the OCII as theSuccessor Agency to the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.Pursuant to state and local legislation, the Successor Agency isgoverned by two bodies, the Oversight Board of the SuccessorAgency and the Commission on Community Investment andInfrastructure.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: State's Motion to Dismiss Granted In Part--------------------------------------------------------------Riana Buffin and Crystal Patterson on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly situated, bring a civil rights action against theCity and County of San Francisco and the State of California forclaims arising from their post-arrest detention at the City'sjail. Plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 againstfor violation of their Fourteenth Amendment equal protection anddue process rights, specifically (1) against the City for jailingthem because they cannot afford monetary bail prior to a firstcourt appearance, and (2) against the State for requiring the Cityto condition pretrial release on monetary payment prior to a firstcourt appearance.

Based thereon, Plaintiffs seek two forms of relief on behalf ofthemselves and putative class members: (i) declaratory judgmentthat Defendants violate their rights under the FourteenthAmendment; and (ii) injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants fromenforcing their unconstitutional detention policies against allclass members. The named Plaintiffs additionally seek (iii)monetary damages from the City and (iv) attorney fees.

The complaint makes no allegation that the bail amounts forPlaintiffs were made other than in conformance with the City'sbail schedule.

The State moves for the dismissal of the present case pursuant toFed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint should bedismissed because (A) the State is entitled to sovereign immunityunder the Eleventh Amendment, and (B) the abstention doctrineannounced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.37, 45 (1971), applies and the Court should not consider any ofPlaintiffs' claims.

The City joined in the State's motion to dismiss on Youngergrounds, and has also moved pursuant to Rule 12(e) for a moredefinite statement of Plaintiffs' claims and requests for relief.

Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and motion for classcertification are also pending before the Court. Finally,California Bail Agents Association filed a motion to intervene inthe proceedings.

In her Order dated February 1, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/lusVpufrom Leagle.com, Judge Rogers:

-- granted the State's motion to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity and denied with respect to Younger abstention.

-- denied the City's joinder in the State's motion to dismiss on Younger grounds and granted the motion for more definite statement.

The Court directed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint nolater than February 25, 2016.

According to Judge Rogers, the Court granted the State's motion todismiss on sovereign immunity grounds, but the Court declinesDefendants' invitation to essentially ignore the first conditionthat state judicial proceedings be ongoing. The lack of an ongoingstate judicial proceeding when Plaintiffs filed the instantlawsuit is fatal to Defendants' efforts to prove that any suchproceeding could be adequate. Because there were no ongoing statejudicial proceedings against Plaintiffs when this case was filed,there is no reason for this Court to abstain in the interest ofcomity. Having failed to establish the first condition for Youngerabstention, the Court need not proceed further in the analysis.Defendants' motion to dismiss on this basis is denied.

Plaintiffs' inability to articulate their legal theory at theJanuary 26th hearing underscores the point. Consequently, theCourt granted the City's motion for a more definite statement.The Court is unable to substantively address the motion absent aclearly articulated legal theory in their complaint. The Courtmust first be assured that the complaint articulates withsufficient clarity the relief sought against the City, theauthority on which the Court may order such relief, and theauthority under which Defendants may afford the relief. The Courtcannot determine whether "injunctive relief or correspondingdeclaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole"without understanding the relief sought by Plaintiffs.Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2).

Judge Rogers also held that only once the Court understands therelief Plaintiffs seek in this case, and the defenses the City andCBAA intend to raise in response thereto, can intervention besufficiently addressed.

Jeremy Michael Goldman, Esq. -- jgoldman@bsfllp.com -- of SanFrancisco City Attorney's Office serves as counsel for DefendantCity and County of San Francisco

SCRANTON, PA: Rental Registration Fee Class Action Hearing Set--------------------------------------------------------------The Times Tribune reports that a landlord suing Scranton'sgovernment over its haphazard program of rental-unit registrationactually is doing the city a favor. The Courtright administrationand city council should take advantage of the opportunity the suitoffers to improve city governance, regardless of the outcome ofthe litigation itself.

A hearing in Lackawanna County Court in March will determinewhether the suit filed by landlord Adam Guiffrida may proceed as aclass action on behalf of more landlords.

The cash-strapped city government tripled the rental registrationfee in 2014 from $50 to $150 and increased the annual per-unit feefrom $15 to $50. That served its apparent purpose, increasingrevenue from $$160,000 in 2013 to $450,000 in 2014.

But the program is characteristic of the city government andillustrative of its long-standing management deficit. WhenMr. Guiffrida filed his suit, the city could not answer the mostfundamental question it raised: How many rental units are there?Rather, the city could only account for the number of units forwhich it had received payments.

City Councilman Wayne Evans, a Realtor, said last May that thereare about 2,500 registered rental units in Scranton, but that theactual number of units subject to registration could be up to10,000. The government should be able to do better thanaccounting for 25 percent of the city's rental units.

The upshot is that landlords who register in accordance with thecity ordinance pay substantial amounts, whereas those landlordswho do not register pay nothing. Meanwhile, the city gladlycollects the fees but does nothing to universally enforce theordinance.

Regardless of the outcome of the suit, the city should launch aneffort to account for all of the rental units and the identitiesof their landlords. Doing so would enable the government toestablish much more reasonable registration fees while increasingrevenue.

An effort to revise the program has been tabled due to somedisagreements between the administration and council, particularlyover an inspection protocol within the ordinance.

Council and the Courtright administration quickly should resolvethose residences, pass an ordinance and implement a program thataccounts for all rentals, sets a reasonable registration fee andaccommodates public safety through an effective inspectionprogram.

The bicycles were sold with carbon fiber seat posts. The modelname is printed on the top tube of the bicycles.

Hazard identified

The carbon seat post can crack, posing a fall hazard to the rider.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidentsor injuries related to the use of these bicycles. Felt Bicycleshas received 10 reports of the seat post cracking in the UnitedStates. No injuries have been reported.

Number sold

Approximately 7 units were sold in Canada.

Time period sold

The recalled bicycles were sold from August 2014 to September2015.

Place of origin

Manufactured in Taiwan.

Distributor: Spaso Sports Montreal Quebec CANADA

Manufacturer: Felt Bicycles Irvine California UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles andcontact their local Felt Bicycle dealer for a free inspection andseat post replacement.

For more information, consumers can contact Felt Bicycles at 1-866-433-5887 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST, Monday to Friday.Consumers may also visit the company's website and click on"Notices".

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibitsrecalled products from being redistributed, sold or even givenaway in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any healthor safety incidents related to the use of this product or anyother consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the ConsumerProduct Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on ProductRecalls website. You can visit this site for more information onother international consumer product recalls.

SPOTIFY: Memo Reveals Takedown of Camper van Beethoven's Catalog----------------------------------------------------------------Paul Resnikoff, writing for Digital Music News, reports thatdespite lingering accusations, Spotify doesn't appear to beripping down content to retaliate against artists raisinglicensing concerns. And its hands may be cleaner than originallythought in its ongoing, $150 million class action battle withartist David Lowery.

The Warner memo appeared to contain exaggerated reports of theinfringements claimed by Lowery, with Spotify claimingcomprehensive demands across both recording and publishing assets.That stoked suspicions of retaliatory takedowns, as Lowery'sdemand has only pertained to unpaid mechanical licenses.Mechanicals are one part of a portfolio of publishing licenses,not recording licenses.

The retaliatory takedown theory was bolstered by an ugly, earliershowdown between Victory Records. That standoff, based on similarlicensing disputes, resulted in a complete teardown of Victory'scatalog, a move that plunged the label into desperation. Shortlythereafter, Victory president Tony Brummel noted that Spotify'sresponse might force layoffs, and the label eventually conceded.

In this situation, it looks like Mr. Lowery's attorneys were theones making the heavy takedown demands. "We have had a letterfrom David Lowery's lawyers asking that we take down all ofDavid Lowery's catalogue," an email from top Spotify executiveSteve Savoca to multiple executives at Universal Music Groupstated. "There is a dispute over publishing rights and while weare working to resolve it we are being prudent and taking down hiscatalogue."

The email to Universal was dated December 22nd, 2015, one weekafter the Warner correspondence. Spotify issued the notificationto Universal Music Group given their rights over recordings fromLowery-led group, Cracker.

A separate source to DMN indicated that Lowery's attorneys didissue the broad demand.

Spotify also adhered to the jurisdiction of the complaint, anothersign of restraint. In a later part of the correspondence, Spotifyalso noted that because the dispute is US-based, non-US Spotifyplatforms would continue to host the Lowery catalog. That isn'tnecessarily the case with every streaming platform, according todetails also received by DMN over the weekend.

The leaked emails are part of an extremely contentious battlebetween Mr. Lowery and a growing number of songwriters and labels.Mr. Lowery's class action lawsuit has been valued at roughly $150million, with a separate, similar class action reaching $200million in potential estimated damages. Spotify attorneys haveaggressively attempted to remove the action, based on technicallegal process problems.

STANDARD & POOR'S: Settles Class Action for A$200 Million---------------------------------------------------------Jane Wardell, writing for Reuters, reports that a substantialsettlement has been reached in a landmark A$200 million ($143million) class action brought against ratings agency Standard &Poor's, according to the law firm for the local governments,churches and charities bringing the suit.

London-based law firm Squire Patton Boggs said on Feb. 20 that thesettlement, which is subject to court approval, is likely to havewidespread international ramifications for similar actions againstStandard & Poor's (S&P) due to the number of products it ratesthroughout the world.

Financial terms of the settlement were confidential, Squire PattonBoggs said. Litigation funder IMF Bentham said it would generaterevenue of about A$52 million and a pretax profit aftercapitalized overheads of around A$47 million as a result of thesettlement.

S&P denied the allegations. It could not immediately be reachedfor comment on the settlement.

"The outcome of this case has highlighted that organizations suchas Standard & Poor's require transparency and accountability inthe formulation of the credit ratings that they assign tofinancial products such as SCDOs," said Amanda Banton, a partnerat Squire Patton Boggs.

Mick Wainwright, the leader of one of the local councils who tookpart in the class action, said the confidential settlement was "awelcome end to the monumental David and Goliath style action."

Mr. Wainwright said the agreement vindicated the lengthyinternational pursuit to recover funds.

The Federal Court found three years ago that Lehman BrothersAustralia had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct,breached fiduciary duties, breached contracts and acted innegligence towards plaintiffs.

The finalization of that matter enabled the launch of the classaction against Standard & Poor's in 2013.

Plaintiffs Howard Baldwin and Jerry Van Norman bring this putativeclass action against Defendants Star Scientific, Inc., Rock CreekPharmaceuticals, Inc., and GNC Holdings, Inc. The crux ofPlaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint is that Anatabloc, apharmaceutical product manufactured by Star Scientific'ssubsidiary Rock Creek and sold at GNC stores, is not the "wonderdrug" Defendants have advertised it to be. Specifically,Plaintiffs allege the advertising and marketing of Anatabloc wasdeceptive in that it claimed the product would provide "anti-inflammatory support" and other medical benefits, even thoughDefendants knew it could not provide those benefits.

Plaintiffs bring this suit under the Illinois Consumer Fraud andDeceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), 815 ILCS Section 505/1,et seq. and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), MO.REV. STAT. Section 407.10, et seq. They also bring claims forbreach of express and implied warranty of merchantability underIllinois and Missouri law, and a common law claim of unjustenrichment.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class composed of all individualswho purchased Anatabloc in Illinois and Missouri between August 1,2011 and the present.

Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuantto Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 2, 2016available at http://is.gd/oCiJg9from Leagle.com, Judge Pallmeyer granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, butthe dismissal is without prejudice for Counts I, II and VI.

SUNEDISON INC: Motion to Consolidate Denied-------------------------------------------DINA HOROWITZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, Plaintiff, v. SUNEDISON, INC., et al., Defendants, CaseNo. 4:15CV1769 RWS, (E.D. Mo.) is one of three securities classaction lawsuits filed in this district against Defendants.Various movants have filed motions to consolidate this case withthe other two cases and for appointment of lead counsel and leadPlaintiff. In doing so, they have lumped the consolidation issueinto one motion with their motions seeking lead Plaintiff and leadcounsel status and have created a confusing mess of a docketsheet.

In his Memorandum and Order dated February 2, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/A0AEiZfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Rodney W. Sippel denied all pending motions. In the event an appropriatemotion to consolidate this action with case numbers 4:15CV1809 ERWand 4:16CV113 HEA is actually filed in this case, any objection toconsolidation shall be filed within 14 days of the motion beingfiled or said objection shall be waived.

The Court said it cannot decide anything about lead counsel andlead Plaintiffs until the issue of consolidation has beenresolved.

The Court noted that most of the movants did not even bother tosupport their request for consolidation with an appropriate legalmemorandum addressing the issue, presumably believing that theCourt would simply grant the request as a routine matter.

So that the docket sheet is clear and to prevent confusion, theCourt denied all pending motions without prejudice to beingrefiled in an appropriate fashion. This means filing a separatemotion for consolidation, supported by a relevant legal memorandumactually addressing the issue of consolidation, for the Court'sconsideration. Any such motion shall also indicate whetherDefendants and/or Plaintiff Dina Horowitz consent toconsolidation.

James J. Rosemergy, Esq. of Carey and Danis and Maurice B. Graham,Esq. of Gray and Ritter, P.C. serve as counsel for Plaintiff DinaHorowitz

On certain motorcycles, electrical system performance could beaffected by a weak connection at the crank case, corrosion at theignition switch due to exposure to corrosive liquids, and/orimproper routing causing wiring to wear against the fuel tank.These issues could potentially result in engine stalling and aloss of motive power, inability to shut off the engine with theignition key, or short circuits potentially resulting in a fire.An increased risk of injury and/or damage to property couldresult. Correction: Dealers will relocate the crankcase groundwire, inspect the ignition switch wiring and wiring harness inproximity to the fuel tank for corrosion and/or abrasion damage,and repair as necessary. Dealers will also add shielding andabrasion resistant material to protect the wiring.

On certain motorcycles, contamination between the valve tappet andcam may cause the hardened surface of the valve tappet to peel ifthe surface shape of the valve tappet is convex. This would allowthe inner part of the valve tappet to come in contact with thecam, which could cause both the valve tappet and cam to wear,increasing the valve tappet clearance. If the valve tappetclearance becomes large, it can result in an abnormal noise andcan cause the engine to stall. An engine stall could lead to aloss of stability of the motorcycle, which could increase the riskof a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Formotorcycles with odometer readings of 4,000 kilometers or greater,dealers will inspect the tappet clearances and will replace thevalve tappets and camshafts if the valve tappets clearances aregreater than the specification. For motorcycles with odometerreadings of less than 4,000 kilometers, dealers will replace thetappets and camshafts, because the tappet clearances may be withinthe specification at low mileage even if there is abnormal wear.

TAX LAW ADVOCATES: Violated TCPA, "Meyer" Suit Claims-----------------------------------------------------Melissa Meyer, on behalf of herself and on behalf of and allothers similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Tax Law Advocatesthe Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00086 (C.D. Cal., January 20,2016), seeks up to $1,500 in damages, injunctive relief, and anyother available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from theillegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently and knowinglycontacting Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of theTelephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant provides tax support to thousands of consumernationwide. It conducts business in the State of California and inthe County of Orange.

When an operator performs radiography with Wireless FPD, thefollowing message may be displayed on the monitor: "The imagecannot be acquired from FPD. Press ok to try retrieving." however,when the operator selects "ok" or "cancel" on the message window,the image is not acquired and is lost.

UBER: Driver Background Check in Spotlight After Recent Shooting----------------------------------------------------------------Peter Holley, writing for The Washington Post, reports authoritiessaid they are investigating whether Uber driver Jason Brian Daltonmay have given a harrowing ride to a passenger shortly before heallegedly embarked on a shooting spree in Kalamazoo, Michigan,that killed six -- and that he may have continued picking up faresin the middle of the rampage.

Ultimately, investigators may decide that there was no reliableway to predict that Dalton would, during a single shift on thejob, morph from his identity as a driver into his role as aalleged mass killer. Police say Dalton didn't have a criminalhistory.

An Uber spokesman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity becausehe was not authorized to speak on the record about the Feb. 21incidents, told The Washington Post that Dalton had passed abackground check required for the company's drivers.

The incident comes just weeks after Uber settled two class-actionlawsuits for $28.5 million that accused the company ofexaggerating the safety of its background checks. Although thecompany used phrases such as "safest ride on the road" and"industry-leading background checks," the suits claimed, it didnot check Uber drivers against the national sex-offender registryor employ fingerprint identification.

"We learned of systemic failures in Uber's background checks," SanFrancisco District Attorney George Gascon said in reference to thelawsuits, according to Forbes. "We have learned they have driverswho are convicted sex offenders, thieves, burglars, kidnappers anda convicted murder."

The Feb. 20 shooting in Kalamazoo appeared to begin with a bizarretwist.

A man told a local television station that an Uber driver wholooked like Dalton picked him up about 90 minutes before theshooting rampage began.

"We were driving through medians, driving through the lawn,speeding along, and when we came to a stop, I jumped out of thecar and ran away," Matt Mellen told WWMT News. "He wouldn't stop.He just kind of kept looking at me like, 'Don't you want to get toyour friend's house?' and I'm like, 'I want to get there alive.' "

Mr. Mellen said he contacted police and Uber about the wild ride.Then he recognized the face when local media posted photos of thealleged shooter.

"I'm upset because I tried contacting Uber after I had talked tothe police, saying that we needed to get this guy off the road,"Mr. Mellen told WWMT.

Uber drivers without criminal histories have committed crimesbefore.

Patrick Karajah, 26, a driver in Pacifica, California, had nocriminal record. But in 2014, he pleaded guilty to felony chargesof assault with a deadly weapon and battery with serious bodilyinjury. Officials said he struck a 25-year-old passenger in thehead with a hammer, fracturing his skull, after an argument aboutthe route Mr. Karajah was taking.

Uber has defended its screening process. In a detailed statementexplaining the procedures in July, the company said that alldrivers must undergo a screening process performed by Checkr,which Uber said is "nationally accredited by the NationalAssociation of Professional Background Screeners." Along withseveral other checks, the company searches federal, state andlocal databases for convictions going back seven years.

Critics have said that seven years doesn't peer far enough into apotential driver's past. But the company has said that sevenyears "strikes the right balance" between protecting the publicand offering "ex-offenders the chance to work and rehabilitatethemselves."

At the same time, Uber's terms and conditions emphasize thatpassengers accept risk by riding in one of their vehicles.

"You understand, therefore, that by using the application and theservice, you may be exposed to transportation that is potentiallydangerous, offensive, harmful to minors, unsafe or otherwiseobjectionable," Uber's terms and conditions read.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission'swebsite.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibitsrecalled products from being redistributed, sold or even givenaway in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any healthor safety incidents related to the use of this product or anyother consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the ConsumerProduct Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on ProductRecalls website. You can visit this site for more information onother international consumer product recalls.

In this civil rights case, Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, assertsclaims for retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rightspursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Plaintiff also asserts statelaw claims.

The Court reviewed on the Report and Recommendation of U.S.Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. It also considered theDefendants' objections, Plaintiff's responses to Defendants'objections, and the remaining record.

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant, in part, anddeny, in part, the Defendants' motion for judgment on thepleadings, which was construed as a motion to dismiss under Fed.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). It recommends that to the extent thatPlaintiff is attempting to assert claims on behalf of otherinmates those claims should be dismissed; to the extent thatPlaintiff is attempting to litigate a class action, classcertification should be denied.

The Report and Recommendation recommends that the claims againstDefendants Glebe and Warner be dismissed for failure to allegesufficient facts against them; but recommends also that the Courtshould grant Plaintiff leave, if he wishes, to file an amendedcomplaint to plead facts which would state a claim against them.It recommends dismissal with prejudice of damages claims againstthe Department of Corrections (DOC), Glebe and Warner (to theextent that he makes claims against them in their officialcapacities) because of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

The Report and Recommendation recommends that Plaintiff's claimsfor injunctive relief against the DOC, Glebe and Warner bedismissed with leave to amend, if Plaintiff wishes. It recommendsthe Court find that the Plaintiff has sufficiently stated enoughfacts to support a claim for retaliation for the exercise of hisFirst Amendment rights. The Report and Recommendation recommendsthat Defendants' motion for qualified immunity be denied at thisstage. The Report and Recommendation also urges dismissal of thestate law claims with leave to amend, if Plaintiff wishes.

In his Order dated February 2, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/6CKKiwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bryan adopted in part the Report and Recommendation. Specifically, Judge Bryan ruledthat:

a) The motion for qualified immunity is denied without prejudice and to the extent that Defendants move to dismiss the damages claims against DOC, Glebe and Warner (in Glebe and Warner's official capacities) based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, that motion is denied.

b) The Report and Recommendation is adopted in all other respects.

c) Plaintiff's amended complaint, if any, is due within 30 days of the date of the present order.

d) The case is re-referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura.

WHIRLPOOL: Environmental Class Action Dismissed After Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------Chad Hunter, writing for Times Record, reports that Whirlpool'sannual report to the state indicates that contamination cleanupefforts in and around the company's shuttered Fort Smith plantreduced toxic concentration levels between 53 percent to 83percent in targeted areas.

A portion of Whirlpool Corp.'s sprawling property on Jenny LindRoad has been contaminated with trichloroethylene, or TCE, sincethe late 1980s when it was discovered in groundwater after theremoval of an underground fuel storage tank, according toWhirlpool's environmental consulting firm, Ramboll Environ. Thetoxic chemical was discovered underneath a nearby neighborhood in2001.

In Whirlpool's 2015 report to the Arkansas Department ofEnvironmental Quality, company spokesman Jeff Noel notes thatremediation activities included chemical injections and continuedmonitoring of soil, groundwater and vapors. The report cites "twoyears of success and progress in Fort Smith."

"Importantly, there were no findings that changed the conclusionthat there remains no health risk to Fort Smith residents fromexposure to TCE in the groundwater beneath or near the Whirlpoolproperty," Mr. Noel wrote in a report summary.

TCE was used at the Fort Smith plant as an industrial solventbeginning in the late 1960s, according to Whirlpool. Whirlpoolsays it stopped using TCE in the early 1980s when it was deemedharmful. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,people who drink water containing TCE well in excess of themaximum contaminant level for many years could experience problemswith their liver and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

Whirlpool closed its Fort Smith plant in June 2012, but had beenworking with the ADEQ for more than a decade regarding thecontamination. Whirlpool was given the nod in December 2013 for acleanup plan, called a Remedial Action Decision Document or RADD,to address the TCE. Since early 2014, TCE countermeasures haveincluded treatment of contaminated groundwater with a chemicaloxidant and removal of toxic soil.

"The remediation efforts have resulted in reductions of TCEconcentrations of 83 percent in certain targeted areas and 53percent in the source area," Mr. Noel wrote, "and have created andincreased the separation of the north and south plume."

The northern "plume" of contamination includes a residentialneighborhood with about two dozen properties between Brazil andIngersoll avenues. In 2015, a settlement was reached withplaintiffs whose property north of the plant was devalued by thecontamination. Settlement terms called for Whirlpool to payaffected owners the amount by which each property was devaluedaccording to the Sebastian County tax assessor, plus 33 percent.

"As a result of these agreements, the environmental class actionlawsuit and most individual lawsuits against Whirlpool weredismissed," Mr. Noel wrote.

The southern swath of TCE on Whirlpool property shows"predominantly stable to decreasing" toxic trends for 31 of 35wells, according to the company. The northern contamination areareflects the same trend with 36 of 42 wells. "These stable anddecreasing TCE concentration trends demonstrate that naturalattenuation processes are naturally addressing the groundwaterimpacts at the site," Noel wrote.

XL FOODS: August 17 E. Coli Claims Filing Deadline Set------------------------------------------------------Linda Larsen, writing for Food Poisoning Bulletin, reports that a$4,000,000 class action settlement has been reached against XLfoods in Alberta, Canada. A huge beef recall and E. coli O157:H7outbreak four years ago sickened at least 18 people in Canada. Thesettlement is available for anyone sickened or who suffered aneconomic loss in the United States or Canada.

The class action lawsuit was filed in 2013. A review found thatthe 2012 outbreak was caused by a lax approach to food safety.That review also found that XL Foods was not prepared to handle alarge recall. About a million pounds of beef was recalled in theUnited States in 2012, which included about 1,800 different typesof beef products. About 1.5 million pounds of XL Foods beef wasrecalled in Canada. After an import ban, XL Foods was cleared toship beef to the United States again in December 2012.

The deadline for filing a claim is August 17, 2016. The classaction alleges that XL Foods "negligently produced certain beefproducts processed at the Brooks facility," and that "XL Foods wasnegligent in the design and implementation of control, samplingand testing procedures and that, upon discovering the possible E.coli contamination, XL Foods was negligent in managing theresulting product recall."

E. coli O157:H7 bacteria is often found in cattle. Those animalslack a gene that would make them sick from the bacteria. Thebacteria is excreted in poop. When these animals are slaughtered,the intestines may explode, which can contaminate the carcass.Then, when the carcass is carved up into cuts, the bacteria canspread onto the surfaces.

This issue is especially problematic for ground beef products andmechanically tenderized whole beef cuts. The grinding processused to make ground beef spreads the bacteria all through theproduct. Then, when that ground beef is used to make hamburgersthat are not well cooked to 165øF, the E. coli bacteria can makepeople sick. Mechanically tenderized cuts, which include steaksand roasts that are pierced by small needles or blades, have thesame issue. The cutting process can force the bacteria deep intothe meat. When a steak is served rare after this process, peoplecan get sick.

The outbreak in Canada ended in December of 2012. The recall forcontaminated beef was expanded nineteen times. JBS Foods tookover the XL plant in the fall of 2012. The USDA issued a publichealth alert for XL beef products in October 2012.

ZIMBABWE: National Park Faces Class Action Lake Chivero-------------------------------------------------------The Zimbabwean reports that the row over the installation of aboom gate at Lake Chivero has spilled into court as clubs and touroperators take action to protest the handling of National Park'saffairs at the lake.

The legal contestation comes after many fruitless attempts by theclubs and operators to engage the Zimbabwe Parks and WildlifeManagement Authority, commonly known as National Parks, on manyissues. Among the most important is stopping the National Parkscollection of entry fees in contravention of their ownregulations, SI 362 of 1990 page 20075, 6 (1) which state that-anentry point has to be designated by a written notice by thedirector on a prescribed or a designated road.

As it stands now, visitors are expected to pay an entry fee of$1.00, a $3.00 parks' fee, a $3.00 fishing fee, $5.00 for boatingand $20.00 for fishing competitions. Research students areexpected to fork out $50.00 for a research permit which has madethe park an expensive venue all round.

The authority has also been criticized over its handling of fishstocks in the lake, as they continue to issue angling licenses toprivate fisherman in spite severely depleted populations. Thishas been attributed to rampant poaching, as well as the hugelevels of commercial fishing taking place. When the lake wasfirst constructed, an environmental impact assessment recommendedthat only two commercial fishing licenses should be issued ratherthan the 39 issued and in operation today.

Under the same National Parks Statutory Instrument Chapter 8Subsection (B) parks have prohibitions that state that withoutpermission from an officer, no person shall within the parks andwildlife estate cause any noise or behave in any manner likely todisturb wildlife or any person or commit any act liable toendanger the adequacy or purity of any water.

But Lake Chivero has a huge problem with noise pollution which isout of control due to the increase in the number of night clubsoperating along the lake, not to mention the appalling state ofwaste disposal, and the poaching of trees and fish.

As a result of National Parks' mismanagement, a total of nineclubs have closed, citing the decline in customers and thecontinued decline of conditions at the lake. The remaining clubsand operators have downsized their work forces. Compoundingmatters is the fact that the Lake is at the lowest level it hasbeen in the last twenty years due to poor rains.

The class action brought before the high court late in December2015 by the Lake Chivero Users Association (LCUA) was deferred to2016, frustrating the Ministry of Tourism and Hospitality effortsto entice school groups and tertiary students to tour the Lake andits environs. In an interview with Harare News, Tourism andHospitality Minister, Walter Mzembi, said the thrust of the newtourism plan being crafted is to promote domestic tourism and giveevery Zimbabwean child a chance to visit a natural wildlife areaclose to their locality. This is being diminished by the variousfees and tolls.

Lake Chivero, which supplies water to Harare and neighbouringtowns, and the surrounding National Parks, was designated as therecreational area for Harare some 60 years ago. Over the last 15years, a gradual decline in environmental management and qualityhas forced facilities to close. As standards have dropped, thelake and surrounds have developed a bad reputation. According tothe LCUA, the class action is a last resort as National Parks haverepeatedly refused to discuss issues relating to the deterioratingstate of the lake.

Vice-chairperson of the LCUA Gary Stafford said that the LCUA hasbeen responsible for maintaining roads, putting up signage, anddonating fuel to the National Parks anti-poaching unit -- effortsthat have seemingly gone unnoticed and unreciprocated by theauthorities.

* Class Actions Among Issues on Agenda for Competition Lawyers--------------------------------------------------------------Grania Langdon-Down, writing for The Law Society Gazette, reportsthat cartels, class actions, damages, compliance, merger control,state aid and tax are just some of the issues on the agenda forcompetition lawyers in 2016. A crystal ball might also be handyto predict what could happen to national competition policy ifBritain leaves the EU.

The competition focus is not only external -- the spotlight overthe next year is also on the legal sector itself as theCompetition and Markets Authority (CMA) investigates how themarket is operating for individual consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises.

The CMA study comes after the authority was told to improve itsperformance by public spending watchdog the National Audit Office,which noted that fines in the UK were running at a fraction ofthose in Germany.

A week after that warning the CMA announced that it was finingGlaxo-SmithKline GBP37 million for market abuse, with a furtherGBP8 million in penalties imposed on the other drug companiesinvolved. GSK is considering grounds for appeal.

The CMA was created nearly two years ago with the merger of theOffice of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. So far ithas received mixed reviews, and the NAO recommends that its powersare enhanced. According to NAO head Amyas Morse, the authorityhas tackled previous failings, resulting in a more coherentcompetition regime, but there are still too few successfulenforcement cases. Business awareness of competition law couldalso be improved.

Peter Willis, co-head of Bird & Bird's competition & EU lawpractice group, points out that in comparison the Frenchcompetition authority issues 30-40 decisions a year, so there isscope for the CMA to gear up its investigations significantly. "Itis doing a decent job building on the two legacy authorities andcreating a new culture," he says, 'and now it needs to do somemore enforcement.'

It is still early days, says Vicky Sandry, Sky UK's director oflegal -- competition, corporate and regulatory. With Sky operatingin broadcasting and telecoms -- both heavily regulated sectors --she and her team of 24 cover merger filings, CMA references,competition investigations and information requests, as well asadvising the business on compliance.

"Competition law is always in the forefront of our minds," shesays. "As a leader in our sectors, everyone has an opinion onSky. We generally have one investigation or another on at any onetime and have done since I joined 16 years ago.

"Our most recent interaction with the CMA was on the BT EE merger,where we were an interested third party and received lots ofinformation requests."

These requests are very challenging, she says, because they oftencome with "unbelievably short deadlines", which is a burden on thebusiness. "If you believe a merger is going to be bad forcompetition you have to put your case forward," she says. "Theauthorities always look at the submissions with a degree ofcynicism, so the challenge is to make sure your concerns arebacked up in competition theory and economics.'

Marc Israel, who heads Macfarlanes' competition/EU group, says theCMA had an "embarrassing" defeat last year in the galvanized steeltanks case, where one person pleaded guilty but the other twodefendants were acquitted by a jury. "This highlights theimportance of the rule changes in 2014," he says, "which meanprosecutors will no longer have to prove dishonesty but just showthe alleged conspirators agreed. This will make it much easier tobring successful cases."

Stephen Blake, CMA cartels and criminal group head, acknowledgedthat the verdicts prompted the authority to drop two criminalinvestigations. But he stresses the 'old offence is not dead',and the authority is still investigating suspected cartel activityin the supply of construction industry products, where there havebeen seven arrests but as yet no charges.

For Andrew Levy, general counsel at Stagecoach, the CMA's outreachprogram, which looks at regional businesses and how familiar theyare with competition law, is a "good use of resources". Hehighlights a recent case where the authority fined an associationof estate and lettings agents in Hampshire, three of its membersand a newspaper publisher GBP735,000 for infringing competitionlaw.

New this year will be the EU directive on damages. Designed tomake it easier for businesses and individuals to claimcompensation, this directive has to be implemented by the end of2016.

The UK is taking a low-key approach on the basis that nationalpolicy already "ticks the boxes", with the government running ashort consultation on how it should implement the directive.

But Mr. Willis says there is a key change in disclosure ruleswhich could have a significant impact on the attraction of ourcourts. Claimants looking to bring competition damages claimschoose English courts, he says, because our extensive disclosureregime is "complete anathema" in many continental legal systems,adding: "But that edge may go once the directive levels theplaying field."

One area where the UK is leading the way on private enforcement ofdamages claims is in introducing an opt-out class action under theConsumer Rights Act 2015.

Claimants will be allowed to bring standalone or follow-on claimsfrom a competition decision. However, transition provisions meanfollow-on claims can only be brought against post-October 2015cartels.

Mr. Willis says the new jurisdictional rules will give theCompetition Appeal Tribunal a new lease of life. "A couple offirms are looking to bring the first class action under the newprovision," he says, "but there are a lot of practicaldifficulties to overcome first, and firms have had their fingersburnt before over this type of claim when they haven't been set upproperly."

The gateway for bringing a claim will be superintended by a judge,says competition specialist David Greene, senior partner of Londoncommercial practice Edwin Coe. "One of the primary questions willbe can you fund this case through to trial? With opt-in actionsyou don't have to lay bare the way you plan to fund and organizeit."

Leading costs barrister Roger Mallalieu, of 4 New Square Chambers,says the new opt-out provision appears well suited to financialservices-type consumer compensation claims.

"However, there are problems with funding and costs, primarily dueto lack of clarity and experience," he says. Contingency feearrangements are prohibited, so the assumption appears to be thatthese claims will be brought by a suitable institutionalrepresentative of a "class", and that the institutionalrepresentative, a third-party funder or the legal representatives,through a conventional CFA, will either bear or share the costburden.

While campaigning and consumer rights organizations may be temptedto bring a claim, Mr. Mallalieu says the incentive for manyinstitutional representatives will be limited, given thepotentially substantial adverse costs exposure.

Within the European Commission (EC) itself, the focus for 2016 isstrongly on the digital single market and "geo-blocking", whereaccess to internet content is restricted based on the user'sgeographical location.

The EC has ignored online markets for years, Willis says, leavingthem to national competition authorities. But, he adds: "Itse-commerce sector inquiry has now kicked off with questionnairesand, if previous inquiries are anything to go by, we will see aspate of individual investigations, so any company doing a lot ofonline business should be under no illusions that this isn't goingto have important implications on what they can and cannot do."

The digital single market is a real focus for Sky, Ms. Sandrysays. Last summer, the commission sent a Statement of Objectionsto Sky UK and six Hollywood studios alleging that certain clausesin content licensing agreements between them would restrict thecross-border provision of pay TV services and are in breach of EUcompetition law. This is now waiting on the outcome of the oralhearing held in January.

At the same time, Sky is working closely with the commission onits separate portability proposals, which would introduce a newright for consumers to travel with content that they have paid forin their home territory. There are also reviews of the telecomsframework directive and the audio-visual media services directive-- "pragmatically, one of our biggest concerns is managing theworkload", Ms. Sandry says.

Macfarlanes' Israel flags up other antitrust challenges by the ECwhich include Google's internet search services, which favor itsown comparison shopping product; Google's mobile operating systemAndroid (in a statement on its official blog, Google has denied itis harming competition); and Amazon's e-book distribution andrelationship with publishers (Amazon said it 'is confident thatour agreements with publishers are legal and in the best interestsof readers. We look forward to demonstrating this to thecommission as we cooperate fully during this process').

The Gazprom case also rumbles on, with the Russian state-controlled company seeking to appease the commission by promisingto change its behavior.

Clementi revisited?

Solicitors may see their clients through the best and worst oftimes, but the profession rarely tops popularity polls. Butlawyers will need to sing their own praises during the CMA studyinto the legal market (see tinyurl.com/zzak5ew), or risk givingground to those with different agendas.

As one competition partner with experience of CMA studies warns:"It is possible to sleepwalk into disaster. If the CMA only hearsfrom those with gripes, it will be hard to dislodge thatimpression. This is already a fiercely competitive market."

The CMA says its study is driven by issues around affordabilityand access to legal services, which is why it is focusing on theexperiences of individual consumers and SMEs. An interim reportis due in July and any reference for a full-scale marketinvestigation has to be made within a year of launching theinitial study.

The CMA plans to examine three key issues: whether customers candrive effective competition by making informed purchasingdecisions of legal services; whether customers are adequatelyprotected from potential harm and can obtain satisfactory redressif legal services should go wrong; and how regulation and theregulatory framework of the sector impacts on competition for thesupply of legal services.

The authority is still working on the scope of the study but itexpects case studies to include will-writing and probate,employment law and possibly commercial law. The Bar StandardsBoard has raised concerns that this will not generate much insightinto advocacy services, particularly in relation to family law,where cuts have left clients particularly vulnerable.

"It's about transparency and the ability of the consumer tocompare services and prices," says David Greene, former presidentof the London Solicitors Litigation Association. His concern isthat the underlying dynamic of competition inquiries tends to beabout price.

"Price is only one element of the service provided," saysMr. Greene, senior partner of London commercial practice EdwinCoe, who specialises in competition issues. "You have to look atthe quality of the service, its efficiency and the end resultbecause a lot of factors come into play."

"The potential danger for the profession is a further chippingaway at the reserved services. There is a move, again driven byprice, for de-skilling and de-professionalising. But the consumerdoesn't necessarily gain an advantage from that because qualitycan go down."

So far the number of responses to the CMA's request forsubmissions is "in the tens", according to Rachel Merelie, theCMA's senior director of delivery. She accepts it will be achallenge to get the provider perspective: "It is a fragmentedmarket, so we will work through representative bodies. We want tospeak to both regulated and unregulated firms and new entrants."

A big focus will be on the regulatory framework, which is alreadyunder review by the Ministry of Justice. The Legal Services Boardweighed in early, telling the CMA that the current system ofregulation is unsound.

In its initial response to the CMA study, the Law Society stressedthe market was not fair as solicitors, who are heavily regulated,have to compete with unregulated providers and argued regulationshould be applied equally to all providers.

Chancery Lane chief executive Catherine Dixon enlarged on this inan article for Gazette, calling for "holistic" reform and theintroduction of a single regulator.

So is the commission favoring the carrot or the stick? 'That isthe million-dollar question,' says Johan Ysewyn, head of Covington& Burling's EU competition group. "The commission likes itsfines, but I think it takes a balanced view that it also likescompanies changing their trading behavior."

What is worrying business is the changing nature of anti-cartelenforcement, he says. "A cartel is no longer people sitting in asmoke-filled room agreeing prices. Now there are triangularcartels -- or hub and spoke -- where you hear from a customer thatyour competitor is doing something and you react. But I know thefee rates of every law firm because my clients tell me -- doesthat mean I am in a cartel?

He adds: "Then there is 'signalling' -- a new toy of thecompetition authorities -- where a company issues a unilateralannouncement that it is going to close a plant or increase pricesand its competitors react. There are some big signalling cases ata European level which are close to settlement, with the partiessaying they will no longer issue press releases. But is thatreally a cartel?"

In another development, European commissioner Margrethe Vestagerhas suggested that the cartel leniency program could be extendedto non-cartel cases, so a company that admitted liability wouldget a 10% discount on the fine.

Dorothy Livingston, former competition partner and now consultantwith Herbert Smith Freehills, says this could be helpful where itis not clear if the case involves a cartel or some otherhorizontal behavior.

"If you take an abuse of dominance case or a purely vertical casebetween, say, a wholesaler and retailer," she says, "they areoften one-off issues and it may be that those involved will taketheir chance on the commission not being able to prove thebreach."

However, extending the program is within the commission's owncompetence, she says, and if it does, national authorities willfollow suit.

Ms. Sandry says the problem with abuse of dominant position casesis that it is a very nebulous concept. "We have been alleged tohave a dominant position in pay TV,' she says. "But what countsas abuse is a really interesting question. These types of casemay not be as susceptible to a leniency approach as a hardcorecartel because they are not clear-cut. "

At the same time, the authorities and commission are beingcriticized for not giving enough credit during investigations tocompanies' compliance programs.

"As a business lawyer, I would say the authorities should givecredit, " says Mr. Ysewyn, 'but, objectively, it's extremelydifficult for a competition authority to judge whether acompliance program is 'good' or 'bad' -- that isn't their job."

With regular bids for rail franchises needing CMA mergerclearance, Levy says: 'Competition compliance is always on[Stagecoach's] agenda because the implications of getting it wrongare severe. So the key is embedding it within the company cultureand then constantly reminding and updating staff.'

The area of mergers is certainly critical in competition terms.With M&A activity last year at record levels, competitionauthorities have had to respond to more aggressive and strategicdeals. More than EUR60 billion of deals -- 20 transactions --were prohibited or abandoned on antitrust grounds, according to anAllen & Overy briefing paper on global trends in merger controlenforcement, with a further 92 cases subject to interference inthe form of remedies.

Also making headlines are battles over tax as multinationals shifttaxable profits to states with beneficial tax regimes. Thecommission proposed measures last year to tackle this "aggressive"form of tax planning.

Yet it remains unclear when tax breaks become state aid -- andthese issues are going to be to the fore this year, Livingstonsays. "What is evident is that tax law hasn't kept pace withcompanies' ability to move money around."

Hovering over all this competition activity is the question ofwhat would happen if Britain leaves the EU.

Isabel Taylor, competition partner at Slaughter and May, is chairof the Law Society's 500-strong Competition Section. "It is hardto know exactly what the impact will be until we know what theexit model may be. On one level, leaving may not mean much changebut, on a more extreme scenario, it could mean a big repatriationof work to the UK. "

The Competition Section contributed to the Society's Octoberbriefing paper on the EU and the legal sector, which says thecompetition regime is recognized as 'one of the major successes'of the EU. While Brexit is unlikely to change substantiveantitrust rules in the short-term, because the UK and EU systemsare so similar, it would allow the UK to introduce new nationalpolicies, though it would lose any influence over the content ofEU regulations which will still affect UK business.

Livingston is helping advise clients on the possible implicationsof Brexit: "If we leave and, because of the immigration element,we don't retain close ties, for instance by joining the EuropeanEconomic Area or having a Swiss-style agreement, there would be noceding of jurisdiction in competition matters to the EC, ashappens now."

This would mean M&A deals that trigger merger controls would haveto be regulated twice and the UK's process is at least asexpensive as the commission's, she says. The UK could also end uprunning parallel investigations into international cartels andother breaches of competition law.

"We would have more flexibility on state aid, but we would stillbe members of the World Trade Organisation so we would be bound byits rules on state subsidies," she says. "It would also bepossible to look again at whether competition law offences shouldbe civil or criminal, and whether we should align the treatment ofindividuals with the treatment of their companies.'

Speaking from Brussels, Mr. Ysewyn says: "You would expect peoplehere to be constantly talking about it but they aren't -- peopleexpect Britain to do the "sensible" thing and stay in . If it doesleave, the parallel investigations would add time, cost andcomplexity to the process which is why the current one-stop shopis a very attractive tool."

With so much going on, it is not surprising that competition lawis attracting young blood to the area, according to Taylor.

The Competition Section runs an annual GBP1,000 Horsfall Turneressay prize for trainee solicitors and paralegals. Last year thetopic was "Brexit: what would it mean for the UK competition lawlandscape?"

When the section comes to choose the topic for 2016, it will bespoilt for choice.

* John Goodson Aided Law Firms to Get State Auditor Contract------------------------------------------------------------Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that StateAuditor Andrea Lea agreed to pay inexperienced out-of-stateattorneys a contingency fee nearly twice as high as other stateshave committed to pay in the long-odds pursuit of unredeemed U.S.Treasury bonds that belonged to Arkansans.

The law firms that got the no-bid contract promising 25 percent ofthe value recovered were introduced to Lea by one of her campaigncontributors, controversial Texarkana attorneyJohn Goodson.

The firms that got the contract are Cooper & Kirk of Washingtonand Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check of Radnor, Pennsylvania.Mr. Goodson, husband of state Supreme Court Justice CourtneyGoodson, and an attorney from Kessler Topaz were among the 17attorneys threatened with sanctions by U.S. District Judge P.K.Holmes III of Fort Smith for maneuvering to get a more favorablejudge in a class-action case.

In hiring the firms that Mr. Goodson recommended, Ms. Lea passedover the out-of-state lawyers who first pitched the idea offighting the federal government for ownership of the bonds and whoare doing the same work for other states for 13 percent or less.

Ms. Lea was able to enter the contract with the Cooper and Kesslerfirms thanks to legislative language inserted by state Sen. JeremyHutchinson, R-Little Rock. Language that Hutchinson added toSenate Bill 356 last year allowed Ms. Lea to choose counselindependent of the state attorney general's office without seekingbids.

The contract calls for the firms to collect a relatively modest 10percent of the value of the savings bonds already in Arkansas'possession, those that have been abandoned in safe deposit boxes.Those fees are estimated in the tens of thousands.

But in a vastly bigger and more difficult case, the firms wouldearn 25 percent if they can manage to get title on the state'sbehalf to the matured, unclaimed bonds that were held by peoplewith last known addresses in Arkansas. The value of those bondsis estimated to be $160 million, so the case could be a money-loser for the firms or it could be worth as much as $40 million.

Ms. Lea told Arkansas Business that getting title to what thelawyers have called "absent bonds" will be a "long shot." TheTreasury is fighting in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims states'efforts to obtain title to those absent bonds.

So far, no state has been successful in getting title to theabsent bonds, but 10 states have hired the same consortium oflawyers that brought the idea to the attention of Arkansaslegislators. That consortium -- represented by J. Brett Milbournof Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan of Kansas City, Missouri,and Jonathan Compretta of the Mike Moore Law Firm of Flowood,Mississippi -- is charging the other states contingency fees of 13percent or less.

Cooper & Kirk and Kessler Topaz, the firms Ms. Lea hired torepresent Arkansas, had no previous experience in this narrow areaof law, and it showed when they first filed suit in Pulaski CountyCircuit Court. Judge Alice Gray denied their request to taketitle to unclaimed U.S. bonds -- neither the paper ones in thehands of the state's unclaimed property managers nor absent bondsthe Treasury believes were last owned by Arkansans.

The attorneys from Cooper and Kessler subsequently got the case infront of an amenable judge by refiling their suit in WashingtonCounty with the assistance of Fayetteville lawyerW.H. Taylor. (Taylor has been a frequent co-counsel of JohnGoodson and is also among the lawyers facing possible sanctionsfor what Judge Holmes called "forum-shopping" in a class-actioncase that originated in Polk County.)

Mr. Goodson, his law partner and other associates donated a totalof $20,000 during Lea's 2014 bid for auditor. Ms. Lea said in arecent interview that Goodson's campaign contributions didn't playa role in her choosing the firms he recommended.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.